isn't that how it starts LBR ?
It started with someone figuring out that some woods work better, some designs work better, some designs work better with some woods......but I get the point. My point is you get to a place where you have a totally different weapon than what you started out with--cars started as horse and carriage.
Is hunting and bowhunting so secure that we don't need additional hutners LBR ?
Probably not, but I'm pretty selective with my definition of a "hunter". By my definition, just anyone in the woods trying to kill something by whatever means available isn't necessisarily a hunter.
Because what you're failing to acknowledge and discuss ( and I'm not convinced its by accident) is that gunpowder is a clear cut difference between archery and firearms. Its what MAKES them two different things ! One used limbs and a string to deliver energy to the arrows - one uses gunpowder and the energy from the ignition of it to shoot a bullet.
Two completely differnt things.
Of course they are two different things--but that only makes my point. What would you bet that the idea for firearms originated with crossbows or similar weapons? Anyhow, my point (maybe you didn't miss it on purpose) is the fact that just because crossbows have ancient/primitive roots doesn't automatically classify them as archery equipment any more than firearms, since gunpowder also has ancient roots.
You cannot say a crossbow is completely differnt. Its VERY similar to all bows - and most of them are more so BOWS than compounds because of the way they work.
I never did--I said they are a bow-plus, just like a semi-auto .270 is a muzzleloader-plus. Just for giggles, where would you classify a compound crossbow? I bet the one Matt referred to is a compound type.
Why do you use that argument, you don't believe it. If MS allowed them for everyone tommorrow, you've already said you wouldn't accept that anyway. What MS or any other state says in its bylaws doesn't matter to you, right ?
Just to point out the huge flaw in one of the main arguments. No, I wouldn't accept them as simple archery equipment if every state allowed them in bow season. That decision was made years ago, and nothing will change it. If crossbows were simple archery equipment and nothing more, there never would have been any argument to begin with--they would have been allowed from the beginning. Even now, most states have strict regulations and require special permits--why is that if they are just another type of bow?
Could be either, could be a handgun, could be a cannon, could be a lot of things. more information is needed
Why? That's all that is needed to call a crossbow a bow--why is it good for one, but not the other?
all 3 fit that definition
Yep, just as a rifle, cannon, handgun, muzzleloader, etc. all fit the other description--yet with the crossbow, it's a bow because it fits, but with a muzzleloader, we need more information. Hmmmm........
Chad