BigJ, your dictionary definition intrigued me .. so I went looking what the definition of a "crossbow" was as you have shown the "bow" and "archery" definitions ... here it is,
A crossbow consists of a prod (similar in appearance to a bow) mounted on a stock similar to a rifle stock, which has a mechanism to wind and shoot its bolts. These bolts are typically called quarrels, and do not depend upon lift as arrows do. The stock and trigger of hand-held firearms may have been copied from crossbows.
Crossbow bolts must be made to have consistent weights as the mechanical process of engaging a bolt forces a more uniform process than that of using a bow and arrow. This consistent performance was part of what made the crossbow historically a significant force in warfare.
A crossbow contains a string which is held in place by a nut when the bolt is loaded and the cross bow is engaged (referred to as at full cock). Typically, the nut is at the end of the shelf (also called the bolt rest).
Now if you are using the definition of archery and bows as proof crossbows are actually archery equipment, how do you explain the definition of what a crossbow is?
I also posted a WAYS back very specific answers to many of your questions and arguments but no one seemed to reply. I addressed the question why compounds were considered bows and allowed during archery season while crossbows weren't -
In fact, compounds pre-date the surge in archery popularity by a good margin. But the real reason there was no problem back then, at the time a compound had few of the advantages over traditional equipment they have today. In fact, states actual legal definition of archery and allowable equipment allowed the compound to be used. Draw weight has always been a legal limitation to archery equipment, manually drawn is the other main definer. Those were and remain the same for traditional and compound bows. In fact, back then, releases were not what they are today so almost all compound guys shot fingers.
I also replied to if "why" that was considered ok.
The reason I say yes is regardless of all the technical advancements to the compound bow allowing them to be easier to shoot, more forgiving, and greater range due to improved energy transmission .. they are shot with the same skills and techniques that traditional shooters use. You must grip the bow in a relaxed grasp, draw that arrow back over the rest to a consistent anchor point, focus on your target or sites, both sighting methods work for all bows ... and then relax the fingers or release the arrow from the release and hold your form till arrow impacts target. The major differences are in the arrow's energy, and muscle strength necessary to hold full draw.
Hopefully my last post here and I hope someone reads it .. but guys just because you disagree with the other persons point, such as Pro's and Con's doesn't make them wrong or right. The Con's I noted are Con's I perceive .. and dismissing them out of hand certainly doesn't make you right and me wrong .. just as it doesn't make me right. Instead of arguing from your own side .. try looking and arguing from the other side. Data brought it up originally as why he is now a convert for Crossbows. Why not argue from the bowhunter side and maybe you'll see why we feel that crossbows are different and should be separate.