LETTERS: CROSSBOWS TREATED LIKE FIREARMS

To the editor:

Mention the term crossbow, and images of medieval castle guards (bad guys) shooting downtrodden peasants (good guys) comes to mind.

In most respects, the crossbow is directly comparable to the other three archery methods: longbow, recurve and compound. All shoot arrows. Since archer devices are not directly comparable to firearms, they should be regulated differently.

Currently, the crossbow is regulated like a firearm. As a consequence, crossbow usage has been artificially diminished by the Missouri Department of Conservation.

Why does the Department of Conservation consider the crossbow a firearm? The answer is selfishness. A small group of vocal longbow and recurve bow hunters consider the crossbow a gun and feel it should be regulated as such. It is not a gun.

Why do these extremists insist on prohibition of the crossbow when the Missouri deer herd is excessive? The reason is that archers have approximately a three-month season to hunt deer, while gun hunters, crossbows included, have only two weeks. Their motivation is they want the deer for themselves without competition. If the crossbow were considered a fourth type of archery method by the Department of Conservation, this would attract more hunters to take up this primitive sport. Considering the crossbow a gun is unfortunate.

I don't even own a crossbow. Archery regulations have a minimal impact on my choices. They do, however, impact others. My main interest is to point out the inequalities in current archery regulations and to motivate change within the system. Get involved.

WILLIAM B. KIST

Columbia