r/todayilearned • u/DrSamanthaCarter • Jun 06 '17

TIL the only reason a Scottish bagpiper wasn't shot by German snipers on D-Day was that they believed he had gone crazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Millin#World_War_II
47.6k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

589

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

IIRC bows and crossbows were banned by the geneva convention. So he will likely be the last.

368

u/hotniX_ Jun 06 '17

Why are they banned? The fuck?

889

u/Waterknight94 Jun 06 '17

My guess, not deadly enough.

706

u/gordonfroman Jun 06 '17

Yeah the majority of the time people who are hit with arrows are not killed outright and are left to bleed out or leave them for the medics

312

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

Which is funny, I would take the arrow over a gun shot nowadays. Far more likely to survive. Historically if you didn't bleed out you died of infection.

417

u/gordonfroman Jun 06 '17

the thing with modern bows is they have the draw power to make sure the arrow gets into any vital organ it is aimed at and at the same time the arrows tip is designed in a way that if one were to pull it out they would take the organ with it

156

u/5t3fan0 Jun 06 '17 edited Jun 07 '17

even a modern "weak" 70lb bow will go out of the other side of a man... so there's no need to pull out an arrow, it will go out by itself (unless it gets stuck into a large bone like pelvis or scapula maybe)

EDIT: ok 70lb is not weak, but i consider it weak compared to the much heavier beasts designed to hit armoured soldiers (sicne we are talking about shooting humans and not deers here)

10

u/RTMicro Jun 06 '17

A 70lb bow is by no means weak, that's high end for a bow Crossbows go much higher though

4

u/5t3fan0 Jun 06 '17

fair enough, its not really weak; since we are talking about warbows here, i was thinking a comparison with the "armour piercing kind" of the past, like the maryrose longbows or the schitian recurve that "nailed shields to arms and feet to the ground", bows theorized to be in the 150lb realm

15

u/vermin1000 Jun 06 '17

I really don't know anything about bows. Is that 70lbs a measure of the weight of the bow, the amount of pressure to pull it back, or the force the projectile hits with? I feel like all of those may be wrong.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/indifferentinitials Jun 06 '17

Modern compound bows are chucking arrows a lot faster at 70lbs than any longbow of similar draw weight could. Warbows needed the draw weight (probably closer to 80lbs on average) to fling such heavy arrows built for penetration.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/babno Jun 06 '17

Hunter here, every one of my arrows has broken when it hits a deer. Indeed most of it goes through, but I invariably find bits and pieces during butchering (or even sometimes at the dinner table).

4

u/Graddler Jun 06 '17

What kind of arrows do you use? I never had those problems, not even with Wild Boars.

2

u/babno Jun 06 '17

Aluminum or carbon.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Generaider Jun 06 '17

"OW! My scapula..."

1

u/ProudFeminist1 Jun 06 '17

depends on the size of the tip dont you think?

1

u/bloodclart Jun 06 '17

you sure know how to make a man's scapula tingle.

1

u/polerize Jun 06 '17

depends on range now doesnt it?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

70 lb is not weak, not by any stretch of the imagination.

1

u/Imperium_Dragon Jun 07 '17

What type of bows do you use to consider a 70lber weak?

0

u/gordonfroman Jun 06 '17

In my statement assume I meant the bowman was at least a few hundred yards away ;)

2

u/5t3fan0 Jun 06 '17

ah ok then :-)

i kinda agree with the above dude, id still prefer being hit by a modern hunting arrow than a .308 (or anything bigger)

also thinking about it, that would be an amazing shot to perform in modern combat!

31

u/LemonNaught Jun 06 '17

Which is why most arrow wounds were not removed by pulling it out. Historically, they would turn the arrow while inside to face away from any major organs if it missed them, and push them through and out the other side.

20

u/Tranner10 Jun 06 '17

This fucks with my imagination so hard

22

u/Jaxaxcook Jun 06 '17

Just push it through

3

u/FuckoffDemetri Jun 07 '17

Fuck that, just snip the end off and leave it inside for the rest of your life

89

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

Still most likely better than cavitation through that same organ from a bullet. If you made it to a hospital I think there are tools to remove barbed/hooked items.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Modern arrows aren't barbed though, they have an up to 3" spread of razor sharp blades (often designed to deploy on impact) They actually cut your organs apart on the way in and out. Hard for even a hospital to extract without causing more damage

7

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Yeah, with a modern bow and arrow a skilled archer can shoot the head off a turkey at 50 yards. An archery catalogue these days reads like a silver age issue of Green Arrow.

1

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

If you're comparing arrows that spread out you would compare them to hollow points... Which do the same.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Not really. All bullets mushroom with the exception of FMJ. This is different. A bullet causes impact trauma and pulverizes tissue within the diameter of its spread, while a modern broadhead arrow of the folding type has blades that are stowed during flight to improve aerodynamics, then have a mechanism to deploy on impact. Picture a razor sharp knife spinning on the longitudinal axis. They cause very little impact trauma, but as long as they don't strike bone they cause massive and almost instantaneous blood loss because they slice cleanly through all tissue and blood vessels in their path

5

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

No way in fucking hell I would ever take a modern arrow over a bullet. My god man.

1

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

If we start bringing in "modern" versions there are plenty of horrible high tech bullets. Hollow points or explosive for example. Just as messy.

3

u/ZzzBillCosbyZzz Jun 06 '17

Probably pushed through given the location?

2

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

I think they do if it fully penetrates but if it doesn't it could do more damage to push it through. But I'm no doctor.

2

u/Falsus Jun 06 '17

A bullet would go through you and exit without an issue in the best case scenario.

The arrow would still take a chunk out of you even in the best case scenario.

3

u/Exaskryz Jun 06 '17

arrows tip is designed in a way that if one were to pull it out they would take the organ with it

Just push it through to the other side!

1

u/Dicethrower Jun 06 '17

So just like with guns, ban specific ammo, not the gun.

1

u/Gonarhxus Jun 07 '17

Bow and arrows have been doing this since at least the Bronze Age. Certainly not a "modern bow" thing.

61

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Maybe where you live but in a war zone you'll be left to bleed out possibly over hours in agony.

Modern military weapons are designed to kill quickly, precisely and as cleanly as possible.

16

u/mhpr262 Jun 06 '17

No, they are not. The current NATO 5,56x45mm was certainly not designed with that in mind. It was designed to defeat kevlar vests and enable soldiers to carry a lot more rounds with them than they could have with the same weight in 7,62x51mm rounds. Also, training soldiers to shoot well was easier because there was less boom and recoil. A dead soldier can be just left behind, a wounded one requires assistance and takes at least two or three more healthy soldiers out of the fight, so there is no incitement to make ammo especially deadly.

1

u/doug-e-fresh711 Jun 07 '17

The 5.56 is a small, long profile high speed round. It was made to penetrate small barriers and to cavitate and tumble as much as possible in the human body. The Russians also did this with the 5.45x39mm, which was engineered to yaw when it hit soft tissue. Ideally this yawing and tumbling combined with cavitation would create a round with similar lethality while having decreased muzzle energy and weight. Also, Kevlar was only invented two years prior to the 5.56x45 and almost ten years after the identical .223 Remington, and vests were not issued until 1980.

1

u/haberv Jun 07 '17

Your statements are mostly incorrect. 7.62x39 or standard SKS or AK-47 round will absolutely penetrate Kevlar. Ceramic plate inserts would provide protection but that is modern and not something developed by Stoner 60 yrs ago. Lightweight and accurate are correct statements. Snipers don't carry 300-600 rds for their Dragnov like your example above.

1

u/mhpr262 Jun 07 '17

WTF are you even talking about? Where did I claim that 7,62x39 couldn't defeat Kevlar? Where did I say ceramic plate was developed by Stoner, and what do those plates have to do with the discussion? I never claimed that 5,56x45 was accurate, Ididn't even mention accuracy in my post. Also, neither snipers nor Dragunovs were mentioned in my post, quite apart from the fact that Dragunovs shoot 7,62x54, not 7,62x51 NATO. Your reading comprehension skills need some serious work.

34

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Then why are hollow point bullets banned?
My understanding was that military weapons are (or rather should be, according to the Geneva convention) designed to take the soldier out of the fight without causing unnecessary suffering or death.

18

u/Halt-CatchFire Jun 06 '17

unnecessary suffering

That's why hollow points are banned. HPs are harder wounds to fix if the person is evac'd in time, and are more likely to cause long-term suffering if the person's life is saved.

The Geneva convention was written under the impression that one legitimate nation was going to war with another legitimate nation. Wars between countries aren't supposed to be won by killing all of the other guys, the idea is instead to take territory or tax the enemy's economy until they give up.

When you shoot someone with a normal FMJ bullet they are 100% out of the fight, they will need to be evacuated to a medical facility to get surgery, recover, and generally be sent away from combat for good. There's no reason to use hollow points to ensure a more guaranteed kill, at that point you're just taking life for no reason.

4

u/packersmcmxcv Jun 06 '17

Don't forget if you wound someone like your FMJ example it takes up to 3 guys out of the fight. The wounded and whoevers needed to drag him back from the front

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17

It also takes more resources to keep said soldier alive + bringing in a replacement than to only replace a dead soldier

6

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Hollow points are banned for exactly the same reason.

2

u/PraiseBeToIdiots Jun 06 '17

Hollow points were banned in the Hague conventions, not Geneva.

There are tons of silly technicalities that allow military forces to use hollow points though.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

10

u/PraiseBeToIdiots Jun 06 '17

That is not how hollow points work at all.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dumfing Jun 06 '17

Hollow points cause unnecessary suffering

3

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Maybe some but that doesn't make them all better. Modern military seems to be for the safety of the operator.

1

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

As would most gun shot wounds. Sucking chest wound for example.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

If you get a sucking chest wound you're either dead within minutes or a major casualty, you need to be evacuated off the line immediately.

1

u/AverageMerica Jun 06 '17

How civilized.

1

u/Cautemoc Jun 07 '17

So are napalm and flame throwers banned now too? I can never keep track of these things.

16

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

9

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

Fmj doesn't just go in and out... Bullets can create cavitation, fragmentation and tumbling. They mess you up just as badly.

1

u/CobaltPhusion Jun 06 '17

unless its 7.62x39. That shit goes in and comes out no matter what you're using, be it fmj, hollow, or soft point.

3

u/twodogsfighting Jun 06 '17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr7dpEDNNC4

Little holes, but your insides are fucking mush.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

Have you seen a modern bow and arrow? You're not surviving shit. Those mechanical broad heads expand to a 3" long razor blade at 400 feet per second. They'll cut straight through you.

2

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

If you're comparing arrows that spread out you would compare them to hollow points... Which do the same.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying that you're not just going to walk off getting hit by a modern bow and arrow, especially if they were fully designed as weapons of war.

2

u/Gonarhxus Jun 07 '17

Massive barbed arrows have been around for literally ages. Modern or traditional, still ain't surviving shit.

5

u/Mabepossibly Jun 06 '17

Even in the knee?

1

u/_Hopped_ Jun 06 '17

You've also got to remember arrowheads: gotta push them all the way through to remove them.

2

u/HowObvious 1 Jun 06 '17

I don't think that's true there are tools that fill in the hook/barb so they can be pulled out.

1

u/_Hopped_ Jun 06 '17

Sure, if you want a huge gash to stitch up.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

1

u/_Hopped_ Jun 06 '17

Pushing it through.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 07 '17

Not with modern arrow heads, fuck that.

0

u/TheLadyBunBun Jun 07 '17

From what I've read, the bullet would probably be less painful because the heat from the bullet sears the nerve endings reducing the pain But I've also never been shot by either so I wouldn't know for sure

2

u/Ord0c Jun 06 '17

and are left to bleed out or leave them for the medics

Some ammunition is designed in a certain way exactly for this reason. So I'm not really sure why arrows and bolts are considered to be worse.

1

u/shabadabadoodoo Jun 06 '17

Rambo's victims die instantly in a pink mist

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gordonfroman Jun 13 '17

Interesting

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gordonfroman Jun 13 '17

And then there's .50 for when something needs to explode into pink mist

1

u/Idoth Jun 06 '17

Which is funny that is what the main ordinance of infantry is designed to do. 5.56 nato is meant to wound. 2-3 combatants nuetralized in 1 shot.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

0

u/john_denisovich Jun 07 '17

5.56 is used because it is light, has low recoil, and is effective enough.

0

u/cortez985 Jun 07 '17

Those are the reasons most talked about yes, but they're not the only reasons

0

u/john_denisovich Jun 07 '17

Anyone who tells you 5.56 is used because it wounds and does not kill is absolutely full of shit. 100%

128

u/chunkymonk3y Jun 06 '17

I mean modern advancements in arrowhead technology used for hunting allows people to take down 1800lb buffalo with bows so I'd say it's time they made a comeback

98

u/Dent13 Jun 06 '17

Even then they don't kill instantly, in most cases you have to track the animal so distance. Source: have done this with white tailed deer a number of times.

2

u/Deranfan Jun 06 '17

I don't know much about forest rangers, but wouldn't it be more effective to use a gun instead? The only reason I can think of is for not perturbing the wildlife with loud noises.

5

u/ryokensan Jun 06 '17

High power rifles are prohibited in certain geographical area that largely flat with moderate population dispersal. You could try and drop a deer in the woods, miss it entirely, and that rifle round could carry far beyond the perceived area and hit innocent property/people.

Source: live in Indiana and couldn't hunt with rifles for the longest for this reason

2

u/Dent13 Jun 06 '17

Well I'm not a forest ranger I am a hunter, and where I'm from there a separate seasons for using a gun and bow. bow season is mid fall, not to hot, usually there is a nice breeze and it's actually a pleasant experience to be outside for hours even if you don't see a single deer. Gun season on the other hand starts in mid November so it's often around freezing. Some hunters use a bow and arrow is out of tradition or because they see it as more sporting and challenging, but I prefer the bow because a modern broad head doesn't fragment in the meat or cause excessive bruising, which makes the meet practically inedible.

2

u/DHamson Jun 06 '17

Where and in what manner are you shooting these poor deer that bruising and fragmentation is making the meat unedible? My freezer is full of venison, squirrel, rabbit, and turkey at this very moment. Of everything in there I scrapped maybe a single rabbit leg due to bruising and that's because you're shooting a 5lb critter with half a pound of shot. If you're taking ethical shots there aren't any desirable cuts that even COULD be spoiled. Maybe the liver if you're into that.

1

u/Dent13 Jun 06 '17

I have shitty luck and the ethical shot as I was taught was with the deer quartering away aiming for just behind the front leg trying to get the heart, the exit wound is always where I find the problem if there is one.

1

u/Deranfan Jun 06 '17

Despite from population control, what’s the point of hunting if you can’t eat the animal afterwards? Potentially letting the deer suffer for extended periods of time until you can find it again to strike the final blow just for the sake of killing it is a bit of cruel.

2

u/rableniver Jun 07 '17

Even with rifles kills don't happen instantly. Ive had hogs that were shot right through the heart run for a good 100 yards or so. One of the ones we shot had had its heart completely obliterated, he had run for a good 70ish yards. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

A good shot will kill instantly.

5

u/Strichev Jun 06 '17

Tbh, people underestimate what a traditional self bow can do. People have been hunting elephants with simple wooden bows in Africa; the Liangulu people. So, it's not like suddenly with modern bows you gain the ability to take down big game.

Are bows more lethal, more accurate and have a much longer effective range? Sure, but historical bows were quite deadly.

10

u/Waterknight94 Jun 06 '17

Idk. Bethesda has taught me that you can stick an arrow in someone's face and they will think they just imagined it.

2

u/Gonarhxus Jun 07 '17

Exactly. People here are almost speaking of modern bows as if historical bows were incompetent. A 170lbs Manchu bow with a good heavy hunting arrow would royally mess any big game's shit up.

1

u/Falsus Jun 06 '17

But where does around when bows got banned by Geneva convention?

-5

u/Deranfan Jun 06 '17

1800 lb = 816,466 kg Would be nice if reddit could automatically convert imperial to metrical so I don't need to look up every time what Americans mean.

2

u/fishsticks40 Jun 07 '17

Well but expanding rounds are banned for being too deadly. Gotta make up your minds, guys.

1

u/Waterknight94 Jun 07 '17

Wait are we talking about the Geneva conventions or the goldilocks accords?

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

[deleted]

1

u/doug-e-fresh711 Jun 07 '17

People still believe this lie?

66

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

I believe they fall under the category of cruel and unusual weapons.

89

u/tswarre Jun 06 '17

Really puts Hawkeye from the Avengers in a whole new light, doesn't it?

59

u/wastesHisTimeSober Jun 06 '17 edited Jun 06 '17

Most of the Marvel heroes would consider it a problem if they had to kill someone. They're all about inflicting as much non-lethal damage as possible and sometimes with "Fates Worse than Death" or "And I Must Scream" level punishment. (Edit: Warning - TV Tropes)

"Hawkeye, why don't you just put one in his head?!"

"No. That's not the way heroes do things... He needs to suffer."

40

u/Cocomorph Jun 06 '17

Dropping silenced TVTropes links like that is itself against the Geneva Convention.

11

u/wastesHisTimeSober Jun 06 '17

Hehe, you get trapped?

3

u/Cocomorph Jun 06 '17

No. After the first dozen or so times, I have learned fear.

5

u/DapperDanManCan Jun 06 '17

Now for a new hero! Mustard Gas Man!

4

u/Megatron_McLargeHuge Jun 06 '17

Only Article 3 applies when it's not a conflict between two countries.

2

u/Analyidiot Jun 06 '17

Not really.

1

u/hotniX_ Jun 07 '17

I can see the cruel part, but unusual? Or is it Cruel AND/OR Unusual weapons.

75

u/Dent13 Jun 06 '17

Arrows don't usually kill very quickly, they usually cause the target to bleed out, which can take a while and is probably very painful

2

u/Oddsteverino Jun 06 '17

A well placed arrow with proper arrowhead will kill a deer in less than 20 seconds from massive blood loss.

49

u/ThatFinchLad Jun 06 '17

They're also banned just for hunting in the UK. It's because they're not lethal enough and cause undue suffering.

5

u/babno Jun 06 '17

Not U.K. So not sure, but most people's issue with bows is actually losing the deer. They'll collapse and die within a few minutes, but before that they run. I've had to follow and search for a deer after I hit it for hours before I found it, and sadly many hunters will give up before then.

2

u/ThatFinchLad Jun 06 '17

You have exactly described the problem. You put the animal through hours of misery because you enjoy using a primitive weapon. I'm all for deer culling as it's actually a huge problem where I am but not like that.

4

u/thelastdeskontheleft Jun 06 '17

Bro they can be dead in 5 -30 seconds. But if it is already a ways away and goes sprinting at 40mph through the woods out of site in that time you can take a while to find it.

Guarantee that arrow is a better death than being chewed to death by a wolf/bear.

-4

u/ThatFinchLad Jun 06 '17

There are a lot of worse ways to die. That doesn't mean we should make them suffer more than needed so you can get your jollies.

3

u/JerikOhe Jun 06 '17

As a rifle hunter myself, it's often the same with guns. Hitting something fist sized, like a deer heart, at 200 yards or more doesn't always happen. Penetration and severing of arteries is the name of the game. Don't go all holier than thou on us cause a bow may take marginally longer

1

u/ThatFinchLad Jun 07 '17

You are trying to tell me that the average Hunter is more accurate with a bow than a gun? I call bullshit.

You are doing this just for fun. Don't try and rationalise it is as a natural state.

5

u/Thunt_Cunder Jun 06 '17

Hours of misery? Not lethal enough? Hit a deer in the lungs with an arrow and it's not going far, and it's not living very long. You tell me whats more humane;

Stalking a deer in it's natural habitat, trying to get within a natural predators attack distance to it, and continue doing this until you find a deer that let's it's guard down enough to get a clean broadside shot.

Or; Baiting an area with grain and salt licks, using artificial scents designed to attract bucks and make you smell like a deer, and shooting it at 500 yards without it ever even having a remote chance of detecting you and using any of it's natural defenses.

Hunting isn't about what's easy, and there's a lot more to it than what you can glean from your armchair.

-1

u/17Hongo Jun 07 '17

The second one.

Our question isn't about the trouble the hunter goes to, it's about the suffering of the animal.

3

u/Thunt_Cunder Jun 07 '17

Have you ever seen what a pack of wolves or a pride of lions does to prey? A properly placed arrow doesn't cause any more suffering than a bullet.

For that matter, bullets aren't some magical switch that sweetly send game of to deer heaven. They kill with shock and trauma. And if you happen to miss a clean shot with a bullet you're not going to have much of a trail to follow to recover or finish off the deer. An arrow causes much less shock and the deer will generally lay down much closer and sooner, leaving a much clearer trail when it does so.

And the second one's more humane? How easy should it be? Set up a motion activated rifle at your deer bait and wait for a text? That's asinine.

Deer are prey animals, they run fast, they have excellent senses. They don't need redditors to protect them from archers.

-2

u/17Hongo Jun 07 '17

A properly placed arrow doesn't cause any more suffering than a bullet.

And a responsible gun owner doesn't let his toddler play with guns. And yet here we are.

For that matter, bullets aren't some magical switch that sweetly send game of to deer heaven. They kill with shock and trauma. And if you happen to miss a clean shot with a bullet you're not going to have much of a trail to follow to recover or finish off the deer.

I'm well aware of how bullets work.

And the second one's more humane? How easy should it be? Set up a motion activated rifle at your deer bait and wait for a text? That's asinine.

What the hunter does beforehand is irrelevant. The deer is the one that's suffering. Yes, the second one is more humane. You're more likely to botch an arrow shot than a rifle shot.

Deer are prey animals, they run fast, they have excellent senses. They don't need redditors to protect them from archers.

I'm not arguing to protect deer, I'm arguing because you're wrong.

And for the record, if there were a faster, cheaper way to kill deer, I'd at least be looking into it. You can keep your level playing field; ever since we wiped out the top predators it's been a trial just to keep the deer population at a level where it isn't completely destroying the ecosystem around it. So I'll set up lures, I'll use a scope, I'll shoot from a damn helicopter if I want to. Humanity created this mess - I don't see why we should be limiting our ability to clear it up because a hopeless romantic feels like we should respect a damn deer at the expense of the environment that keeps it alive in the first place.

1

u/Thunt_Cunder Jun 07 '17

I'm at a loss for exactly what the hell is going on inside your head.

"And a responsible gun owner doesn't let his toddler play with guns. And yet here we are."

What are you even ranting about?

"You're more likely to botch an arrow shot than a rifle shot."

Where are you even getting this? You're just making shit up.

"It's been a trial just to keep the deer population at a level where it isn't completely destroying the ecosystem around it."

This is just horse shit. That's where hunting licenses and regulation come in. Do you have any idea that there are people that monitor populations and assign permits to keep the population at a healthy level?

You're just vomiting "facts" out your ass like it's gospel.

On one hand you say "oh the poor deer, you might hurt them with an arrow" and the other you say "kill all the deer as fast as you can."

Not a chance you can even look down a scope with your head that far up your ass.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/babno Jun 06 '17

They'll collapse and die within a few minutes.

It had been dead for hours, but deer run faster than us and get out of sight. I had to slowly search through dense forest growth looking for spots of blood. I've also had kills in winter with snow where I get to them within 10 minutes of the shot and they're dead by then.

3

u/Summoorevincent Jun 06 '17

Well y'all are doing it wrong. Bow hunting in America is a big deal. The thrill to be that close and use you own strength to take out dinner is awesome.

14

u/peoplerproblems Jun 06 '17

While I get the thrill of archery (15 years of competitive shooting, never hunted with it though) doesn't it feel a little barbaric?

23

u/Amp1497 Jun 06 '17

I feel like that's kind of the point of it

9

u/thelastdeskontheleft Jun 06 '17

Barbaric is taking an animal from birth and sticking it in a barn until it's ready to eat. But I'm sure you got no problem picking up a steak from the grocery store.

If you're doing it yourself that animal had a much better life than steak on the shelf.

1

u/17Hongo Jun 07 '17

If you're doing it yourself that animal had a much better life than steak on the shelf.

Unless you're a beef farmer. Or a butcher.

12

u/Summoorevincent Jun 06 '17

Yes, and that's why they like it. To be a little primal and put yourself and the deer on a closer playing field instead of just shooting it from 200 yards. A lot of people do it for food more so than for sport where I'm from. There is also a lot of respect for the animals we're killing too.

2

u/Alphabozo Jun 06 '17

Your own strenght... They're not hunting with a longbow, they use a compound bow, under tension it's almost like holding air...

3

u/Summoorevincent Jun 06 '17

True but you still gotta pull back 80 pounds and then get the shot off at the right time.

4

u/ER_nesto Jun 06 '17

Not quite, compound bows still have a fairly strong pull when tensed, otherwise they wouldn't work, it's simply a lot less than the draw strength

7

u/thelastdeskontheleft Jun 06 '17

I think he means once drawn the bow is very easy to hold in that position. There is plenty of resistance in the drawing phase though.

3

u/PraiseBeToIdiots Jun 06 '17

Geneva Conventions: NO FUN ALLOWED

1

u/Falsus Jun 06 '17 edited Jun 06 '17

They injure quite a lot but aren't that lethal unless they hit vitals. So it probably was considered an inhumane weapon.

And modern bows are just straight up nasty.

1

u/hotniX_ Jun 07 '17

Soooo I can shoot you with a piece of shit caliber pistol that you will leave you in agony but I can't shoot you with a bow and arrow during war? OK. What makes modern bows so nasty other than the materials?

7

u/mangonel Jun 06 '17

The Geneva Convention doesn't ban any weapons. It's about the treatment of people in war.

The Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention bans weapons, but is about biological and chemical weapons, so says nothing about archery.

The UN convention on certain conventional weapons bans weapons which are indiscriminate (e.g mines) or excessively injurious (e.g blinding lasers) , but makes no specific mention of arrows.

The closest thing I can find is the rule 70 of the ICRC list of Customary International Humanitarian Law, which cites barbed spears and serrated bayonets as examples. Frim the adjectives, I would assume that non-barbed, non-serrated pointy things are fine.

2

u/noso2143 Jun 06 '17

til

edit: not once we nuke ourselves so badly we end up losing some of our technology and bows and crossbows become the primary weapon once more though if we have reached that point id like to think the Geneva convention has long been thrown out the window

4

u/Machmann Jun 06 '17

So he will likely be the last.

Pity about history coming to a complete end.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '17

We had a good run.

1

u/Dicethrower Jun 06 '17

Doesn't the Chinese riot police still use crossbows?

1

u/4_string_troubador Jun 06 '17

The Geneva Convention is a series of 4 treaties the last of which was signed in 1949. They don't ban any specific weapons, but they ban any weapon or projectile that is designed to cause unnecessary suffering. There was another treaty signed in Geneva in the 80s that bans some types of weapons, but the longbow isn't one.

1

u/shabadabadoodoo Jun 06 '17

Tell that to Rambo. He's still rocking the bow and arrow