Talk:Captive bolt pistol

message: The article Stunner (cattle) seems to me to be about the same topic, albeit with some savable info. As having two articles on the same subject is a bit redundant, I suggest that someone who understands the subject extracts anything useful from that article to integrate into Captive bolt pistol and set the Stunner article as a redirect. Foxhill 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge in of Stunner (cattle)

message: The article for "pollaxe" refers to a long-handled bladed weapon from medieval times. I'm sure it could be used to kill a cow, but is that really the correct verb in this context?  If it is indeed a verb meaning "to smack on the head" then perhaps there should be a mention of that in the pollaxe article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.9.232 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure a "pole-axe" is well-described by the name. It's a big pole with an axe on the end. For chopping enemy soldiers at a distance. I'd be very surprised if it had anything to do with animal slaughter. Swinging one at a cow from 8 feet away would surely be a bit impractical. As a verb, to pole-axe usually means to cancel or stop a thing, often an idea or policy. Why this, and not a dagger or a mace, who knows, though it has a nice sound in the mouth. Were pole-axes ever used in executions? That would be a good connection to it's modern use. 188.29.165.207 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not poleaxe but indeed pollaxe, at least in the context of the weapon of war. Just fyi. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pollaxe" as a verb? 

message: :"The stunning is essential to prevent the pain and suffering of the animal through the bleeding [...] process."
The first part of the sentence generalises that cows suffer from being shot, presumably because the speaker knows from experience that being shot is indeed painful. However the second part of the sentence implies that the 'bleeding process' is the cause of said pain; however anyone who has been wounded knows that bleeding is not really a source of pain. Nerve damage, tissue trauma, yes -- not bleeding per se. Vranak 06:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed from 'through' to 'during' Stanstaple (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious sentence 

message: The article title and first sentence aren't in agreement.  Is this a "captive bolt pistol" or a "captive bolt stunner"? Alvis (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: In the film No Country for Old Men, Anton Chigurh is shown killing a man by firing a captive bolt pistol into his forehead. However, this article says the primary (and only legal) use for captive bolt pistols is to stun cattle before killing them by other means. I obviously haven't tried it myself, but does this mean that a captive bolt pistol can kill a human, but only stun a cow? If so, is this because cows are so much larger than humans? JIP | Talk 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, it does state in the article that a cows/bulls skull is too thick/far from the brain to kill.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Country for Old Men 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: The article seems to talk about non-penetrating being more popular and penetrating being more popular without really indicating in which contexts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.45.231 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I've just read the article to find out what a captive bolt gun is. I now think this means that the bolt is retained by then gun when fired. I think this need to be more explicit in the introduction perhaps a diagram outlining a typical mechanism would be useful? As I’ve only just heard of such a device, I am clearly not the person to do this edit but this is my feedback as someone with no prior knowledge of the subject matter. CollinIan (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro Section

message: It was mentioned twice in this article, that an advantage of a penetrating captive bolt is preservation of the brain stem, which would allow for the heart to continue beating. However, this is not correct. The heart is autonomous in its electrical activity and does not require a functioning brain stem to beat. Breathing, on the other hand, is dependant on the brain stem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyyge (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain stem function 

message: I would like to suggest a rewording of the first line, in the description of what a captive bolt gun is. Rather than CBT is a device used to stun animals prior to slaughter, I submit that it ought to read 'A device used to attempt to stun animals prior to slaugther'. References supporting this technicality - The manufacturers reports themselves, and the research looking at the efficacy of CBT's in stunning cattle. The studies find that, under a controlled research environment, where operators are highly skilled industry operators, and where slaughter throughput speeds do not resemble the demands placed on far less qualified/experienced workers in real slaughterhouses, and where placement of the weapon was ensured to be correct prior to firing, the efficacy rate was around 90%. So that's 10 in every 100, or 5 in every 50, under the highly controlled research conditions, that were severely injured but not effectively stunned, by this device. Under far less controlled conditions in the average slaughterhouse, where most workers are far less experienced, where placement of the device is far less often correct prior to use, and where there are higher demands to process a much greater number of animals over a far lesser time period, failure rates are likely much greater. So I think a rewording, that includes the word 'attempts', to reflect the reality, is justified. References: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275027531_Evaluation_of_a_spring-powered_captive_bolt_gun_for_killing_kangaroo_pouch_young https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323188329_Effectiveness_of_pneumatically_powered_penetrating_and_non-penetrating_captive_bolts_in_stunning_cattle
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29477880/ as well as 6.2 Study II in https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/13407/1/atkinson_s_160525.pdf and https://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/inst/hmh/hmh-pdf/atkinson_etal_2013_assessment_of_stun_quality.pdf
Whereas studies like this one have unforgivable methodological flaws, i.e. using surveys to claim success rates, rather than controlled scientific experiments, incorrectly making the assumption that stun efficacy is the only consideration relevant to animal welfare outcomes from subsequent stabbing, etc. etc., not really sure how it got published. But as you can see its results are so remarkably far off the results of every other replicate of similar research published to date, that its likely this one isn't worth the paper it was written on: http://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/215-230-Penetrating-Captive-Bolt-Stunning-and-Exsanguination-of-Cattle-in-Abattoirs.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.182.221 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technicalities, what does the cold hard scientific evidence say, does discussion of the facts around that have a place here etc. 

message: I have found at least one well-documented and reliably sourced case of captive bolt guns being used as a mechanism of suicide. See here (WARNING -- Contains graphic imagery): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45405294_Planned_Complex_Occupation-related_Suicide_by_Captive-bolt_Gunshot_and_Hanging  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossark (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in Suicide 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: >This type of stunner is less reliable at causing immediate unconsciousness than penetrating types; however, it has undergone a resurgence of popularity because of concerns about mad cow disease. 
I remember reading the lit when it came out on the topic, I fear it's gone on for so long now it's entered into the zeitgeist and accepted as the norm. The publications that were posted about BSE scaremongering were by several Halal and Kosher lobby groups. Because if the captive bolt gun doesn't penetrate and cause a humane death then the death is by exsanguination and thus can be done in a way that offers a blood sacrifice to appease the religious types out there. Given that most abattoirs in most western countries are now exclusively run by either Halal or Kosher approved employees often (at least in my countries case) imported for the purpose, the BSE myth facilitated in abattoirs of all meat industries being taken over by religious mobs and almost all blood spilt by human hands now being a sacrifice to whacky gods. As an atheist that always irked me. That in this modern age a hostile take over by religious types of an entire industry would go unchecked because people don't read source materials or notice that 100% of the materials came out from biased sources, sources that stood to gain trillion dollar contracts by fear mongering. To date not a single case of BSE has been linked to captive bolt guns, and yet the myth of it has caused every animal (about 7-8 trillion a year) to die slowly and painfully while semi conscious rather than instant brain death.
I don't know how this isn't even addressed in the article. I wouldn't dare touch it as clearly my opinions on the topic are too strong as an atheist / anti-theist who thinks that spreading misinformation just to hijack an industry (whether it's for monetary gain, or whether it's blood for the blood god who knows) but it would be nice if Wikipedia was at least skeptical of claims by halal and kosher lobby groups and didn't just follow the zeitgeist and state it as an accepted fact. In another ten years no one will even remember this industry take over and BSE being linked to captive bolt guns will be an "It is known Khaleesi." style of nonsense. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BSE myth. 

message: After WWI, pets were seen as an unwanted nuisance in wartime, as they would either roam the streets following a bombing or eat the already limited and rationed food. 
The Committee was formed to solve the problem, and their solution was unimaginably horrific. They released a pamphlet advising pet owners to either release them into the countryside or have them euthanized. Included in the papers was an ad for a captive bolt pistol, said to be “the standard instrument for the humane destruction of domestic animals.” 
This led to over 750,000 pets being killed in a week - That’s 107,000 killed in a day. Bizli SharKiid (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Advice for Animal Owners (or AFAO) incident.