What is More Dangerous?

[HippieMagic]

This is just a simple stupid little discussion that is fairly light hearted but I was sitting here thinking about it and really I can't decide.... So what do you think...

Out of a compound bow, a 4-5" service handgun, and a bladed weapon... Which is more powerful?

A bow has range, will cut through kevlar, and is quieter than a suppressed gun. It can be had without a background check, generally doesn't get you looked at, and an arrow can easily create a nasty permanent wound channel and is a pain to pull out.

A blade will cut through kevlar, can cleave a man in half, and will cause you to bleed out faster than a bullet. It can be an instant kill and with a good slice they won't be getting up... easy to buy, cheap, and doesn't run out of ammo. Can be small enough to conceal super easy or large enough to just get the job done.

A handgun has more range than the others, takes less skill, but most rounds can be stopped with a vest and has less registered kills than the other 2. It is also harder to use under stress than the others... at least effectively... may be easier than a bow though. It definitely has more power but also loses points for noise, recoil, and requires a background check. Ammo is also hard to find right now... a gunshot to the leg would be less effective than a slice from a blade...

I guess these are stupid ideas but sitting here wondering about gun control made me think "Why is gun control such a big deal? Isn't it more than likely the safest item out of the other choices we have?" I mean a sword and a gun have equal appeal to a child... an arrow can cause serious pain and infection as well... if no ammo is around the gun is harmless... same goes with the bow but the sword will ALWAYS cause serious damage just by it's nature... Random post I guess but I am interested in seeing what you guys think...

Is a handgun really the most dangerous out of the 3?

 

[lions]

If a bow wasn't better than a sword, we would never have had archers. If a gun wasn't better than a bow, we would still have archers.

You might be over-thinking this a little.

 

[PT1911]

depends on the hands they are placed in.. the knife, being the most primitive it very effective, but when you have someone with even a basic distance weapon ie a stick(ow either of the others mentioned), the benefits are negated, the bow is very stealthy and can be accurate and effective as well, but the amount of time necessary to practice and the inability get off rapid shots. When put up agains a cover situation, the lag time between shots and the relative inability to shoot from cover make it less versatile... Overall, the handgun takes less training, is more devastating immediately (depending on caliber) and can be fired from many positions, one handed, and from cover. Each has their place, but overall the handgun is the most useful and versatile and dangerous of your options.

also, defining danger over effective. One cannot disregard the possibility of being injured by your own weapon... cutting yourself accidentally, not likely to be life threatening, shooting yourself accidentally with a bow, not likely to be life threatening as it will be an extremity shot and likely a shot if the foot as other options are just not very easy to accomplish. So, it would suck, but you would recover without incident. Shooting yourself with a handgun however can result in an injury to nearly any part of your body and even an extremity shot is likely to result in massive trauma and lasting effects.

 

[ScareyH22A]

Knife/sword is the most dangerous.

 

[Grizfire]

Hand gun, no brainer,

the ability to rapidly fire continuously, with killing power, at extended ranges.

 

[HippieMagic]

If a bow wasn't better than a sword, we would never have had archers. If a gun wasn't better than a bow, we would still have archers.

Actually we still have quite a few archers. A lot of hunters prefer a bow over a gun to get the job done. It is a safer alternative and over penetration isn't a big deal. An arrow generally goes completely through things like deer though.

The idea wasn't because it was more effective it is the simple fact that if you have archers you are preventing the enemy from getting close... the guys you can kill from a distance may help keep your guys alive longer or even change the tide of battle.

A gun is actually just an evolution of a bow that allows us to reach further. Our army wouldn't be optional if we all had swords because we would ALL be enlisted for the simple fact that the majority of the troops we have right now would be lost in a single battle. It is just safer to shoot from a distance than poke from up close... doesn't really mean it is more effective than a blade.

I mean technically we could get the job done quicker dropping bombs all day and that would make guns ineffective in general. It is just a little messier and I don't think people would agree with our practice on that lol.

 

[PT1911]

A lot of hunters prefer a bow over a gun to get the job done. It is a safer alternative

So.. assuming we all agree that the knife/sword is coming in 3rd here, you just answered your own question.....Safer alternative=not as dangerous.

 

[HippieMagic]

no... by safer alternative I am saying that it won't go a mile, ricochet, or automatically discharge. Kevlar won't stop an arrow and most bows now will launch them at over 350fps which is enough to completely go through a human target. It won't have the range of a rifle but most people will consider handguns only useful out to 50 yards which a bow can do that is why it is here... I am not really talking about rifles here I am referring to handguns because if we say rifles you are opening up a whole new can of worms... rifles are more powerful and have a LOT more range than a bow or handgun ever could.

I used that example because he said archer's no longer exist when there is in fact a pretty big market for archery still. A bow will generally have that same 10-12" penetration that most bullets are supposed to achieve to be considered effective. They just don't have the same thud a bullet will have when it hits. That initial transfer of energy isn't really that important anyway. It will have blunt trauma but still you have the noise, recoil, and bullet markings from the gun to trace it. A bow doesn't have any of those.

 

[mljdeckard]

Effectiveness against Kevlar is NOT in my checklist when choosing a weapon.

I always keep a knife with me, but if I ever have to use it defensively, it's because something has gone very wrong with my gun. I would choose a bow for defensive use......never. It's difficult to use within ranges you would really call defensive.

 

[Grizfire]

Actually we still have quite a few archers.

there is in fact a pretty big market for archery still.

That doesn't make them more dangerous. Most of the market for bows is for hunting. The use of the bow in arrow for hunting is not due to its inherent effectiveness (we have rifles for that), but rather its to provide a primitive, rewarding, challenging method for hunting. I think most bow hunters will agree with me that you would have to be comparatively close, with special attention to shot placement to kill your game and make this tool effective.

 

[Bradym77]

It all depends on what the other guys packin'

If he is unarmed, the blade will do nicely.
If he has a blade, I'll take the bow so it won't alert his friends and no cutty.
If he has a bow, I'll take my shot with the gun out of his range and take his friends out too.

 

[HippieMagic]

Bows are highly effective at 35 yards... We used to set targets out to 50-60 yards and hit them pretty consistently in the kill areas so yeah it is possible to get a hit with a bow at decent range. The archery targets at the shoot we used to run were always at 50 yards and most guys there registered good shots... A bow isn't a 10-20 yard weapon... some of you seem to think if you aren't close enough to spit on the target you can't hit them with a kill shot lol.

I am not asking what you look for when choosing a handgun either... The question is which do you feel is more dangerous... If a bow at 50 yards isn't effective what distance do you normally shoot your handgun at? lol

 

[Oyeboten]

I think the last official enemy fatality by Bow and Arrow, was at Dunkirk...


But as for which is more 'dagerous'...


The more useful question, would be under what conditions would either of the Weapons be optimal.


A Banana Peel or Roller Skate on a Stair, is 'dangerous'...


Lol...

 

[Oyeboten]

Finally remembered - 'Captain Jack Churchill'


Some mention here

http://paladinplanet.blogspot.com/2009/01/read-thrilling-excerpt-from-paul.html

 

[CDW4ME]

"an arrow can easily create a nasty permanent wound channel and is a pain to pull out"

I doubt a person would have to worry about pulling the arrow out.
I've shot completely through 19 deer with compound bows, with the arrow typically sticking into the dirt on the opposite side of the deer after passing through.
A typical (small) hole would be a 1'' diameter 4 blade head, nasty permanent channel is correct.

 

[amd6547]

In the hands of someone who knows how to shoot and knows their weapon, a service handgun has a range of 100yds, not 50yds.
I guess the question you should ask yourself is...If someone were attacking you with a bow, a sword or a knife (or a handgun), which weapon would you rather defend yourself with? A bow, a blade, or a handgun?

 

[lions]

Actually we still have quite a few archers.

True, but...

A bow has range, will cut through kevlar...

Since you mentioned kevlar in your first post I assumed you weren't talking about deer hunting. Or maybe you were, are the deer sporting kevlar in West Virginia?

 

[Sport45]

A bow has range, will cut through kevlar, and is quieter than a suppressed gun. It can be had without a background check, generally doesn't get you looked at, and an arrow can easily create a nasty permanent wound channel and is a pain to pull out.

I think you'd be looked at plenty if you were walking through downtown Houston with a compound bow and a quiver of broadheads.

On the other hand, a concealed handgun won't attract a glance.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The answer is a broadheaded arrow, shot from a 45 lb + bow from a skilled archer, if by more dangerous, you mean killing potential.

You could go after a coastal brownie or cape buff with the right bow/arrow, and feel confident it would do the job - you cannot say the same about a handgun or contact weapon. Unless you include large .45 colt or more powerful revolvers in your "handgun" definition.

 

[rbernie]

What is More Dangerous?

A bow is darn-near-impossible to use while on the move, as you would be in anything other than a 'staged' shoot. It cannot be used with one hand, meaning that you cannot block blows or manipulate your environment while trying to use the bow. Time between shots is limited. It's very hard to draw and use when at contact distance. In short - it's a stand-off weapon with known lethality but a limited range of utility. It kills through hemmoraging, and the wound pattern it creates is not massively traumatic when compared to that created by a firearm projectile.

An edged weapon is, in many ways, the opposite. It is almost always a single-handed weapon (broadswords and such notwithstanding). It can deliver repeated blows as quickly as the hand can move. It clearly requires you be in halitosis-range of your opponent, and is of little value outside of contact distance. It also kills through hemmoraging, and the wound pattern it creates is not massively traumatic (unless you're using a bladed weapon that chops, rather than pierces). Most people who are stabbed and killed need to be stabbed many times in order to effectively kill them.


There's a reason that the handgun supplanted the sword and the bow as the sidearm of professional combatants. It can be effectively used at any distance from zero meters to 50 meters, it can be used by one hand for fast work or two hands for precision work, can be used on the move, and can be effectively used in a tussle. It's certainly easier to be deadly with a handgun than it is to be deadly with a bow or even a knife.

Can't do that with anything else.

 

[jaybr]

I've always heard it's a bad idea to bring a knife to a gunfight

I wouldn't bring a bow to a gunfight either.

I also bow hunt and consider myself proficient with a bow. When I shoot deer, their standing still, and I'm shooting from an ambush position, problem is in a fight you won't have those optimal conditions.

If I knew the bad guy was wearing kevlar, and was going to stand still at 30 yds while I took my shot, maybe I'd choose a bow, but I don't carry a bow waiting for that to happen.

 

[kd7nqb]

I think the kevlar issue is really distracting here. Kevlar was developed to be effective against a bullet. I imagine that many handguns specifically things like the five-seven would punch through metal plate that would stop an arrow.


Out of the 3 I will still take a gun every day.

 

[John Parker]

I like the argument that a bow offers a silent kill. Thanks, Hollywood.

"Oh G*D! I've been shot! Arrrrrgggghhhh this arrow is sticking like two feet outside my chest! Ahhhh!!!!! I'm hacking up foamy blood now! Please, make it stop! Help! Help!"

 

[fishing]

A handgun is more lethal. If you've ever shot a deer with an arrow, you'll know that it will run for quite a while until it bleeds out. In a human, that gives the shootee time to inflict lethal injury to the shooter. One needs stopping power, not lethality. Also, I seriously doubt if an arrow could penetrate a III-a vest. At the archery range, they use .25" of rubber to stop all broadhead arrows. If you're adversary is wearing Kevlar, go for a rifle, or a headshot with a handgun. Practically any centerfire rifle will penetrate a IIIa vest and exit out the back.