Talk:Captive bolt pistol

Untitled

"...of the animal. Such bolts prevent massive injury to the brain and make it suitable for human consumption." Does 'it' here refer to consumption of the entire animal, or just of its brain? Which method is more common?

Proposed merge in of Stunner (cattle)

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)

I second. SLATE 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the merge go in the other direction? That is, merge "captive bolt" into "stunner," rather than the other way around? A captive bolt is a type of stunner in this context, and presumably there are other mechanisms for stunning livestock, such as electrocution. AaronWL 23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"pollaxe" as a verb?

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).

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)

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)

Curious sentence

"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)

Changed from 'through' to 'during' Stanstaple (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

why is human on there? the article was already disturbing enough without knowing about 'stunning' humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.158.199 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence is obviously factually incorrect regardless. Stunning is not essential to prevent pain and suffering of the animal through the bleeding. Plenty of other options are available, one of them actually ensures that the animal doesn't suffer at all through any part of the process whatsoever. Namely not subjecting the animal to violent slaughter to begin with. Shouldn't need a reference for that one, surely. Suggest an edit that reflects this reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.182.221 (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Title

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)

No Country for Old Men

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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) Is it really a "captive bolt pistol" in the film anyway? It seems to work similarly but it certainly looks like an oxygen bottle, not a cattlegun. 81.252.108.73 (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Is there anything known about the history of captive bolt pistols? 87.160.236.237 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The human skull is much weaker than that of cattle. A penetrating pistol would likely cause braindeath immediatly in it's own right, and a non-penetrating one would probably do just as well or better due to bone spall. 97.106.97.138 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} 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)

Meat spoilage

How does exsanguination prevent meat spoilage? I found nothing on any of the wikis linked here.--Cancun771 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blood seems to break down relatively quickly. See decomposition for more info. The stuff released by autolysis would then come in contact with other tissues, encouraging further autolysis and providing more ready food supplies for pathogens. Draining the blood before any of this happens -should- delay this process. This is all conjecture from my understanding of things, but it's an answer - take of it what you will. Some of this speaks from working as a butcher clerk - cut surfaces contacting each other cut surfaces consistently results in very rapid discolorization - which left as-is resulted in unexpectedly quick spoilage and a marked change in taste. This seems to happen particularly with red meat and pork - I never noticed the phenomena in poultry or fish.

draeath (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

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)

Intro Section

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)

Uncited but rather important claim requires citation or removal

This needs the response of an expert or someone who feels like tracking down a proper reference.

In 2012, one user (User:Sketchah, whose only recorded contribution is this edit) inserted the following claim, referring to one objective of the stunning process being to keep the heart beating during the bleeding process:

This however has no bearing on the efficacy or speed of the bleed, as cardiac output requires a venous return, as venous supply is severed, this does not occur. The bleed hence relies on gravity and not a heartbeat.

It was reworded a bit since then before being slapped with a citation needed tag. It has been in the article for two years now with no reference or discussion. Although this may not be the most relevant part of the section, let alone the article, I think the notion that the heart should remain beating during a bleed for best effect is widespread—widespread enough, at least, that there must be someone out there who has written or produced something to refute it, if untrue.

So. Which is it? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been my only contribution but i have been misquoted. my change was to explain that a captive bolt stuns and is not used as the method of euthanasia of which has now been rectified on the page. at no point did i reference use of heart to allow the exanguination of the animal. as above is correct in terms of venous return. i have no reference to this at the moment but i am a vet if that helps. will citate if i find the relevant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sketchah (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You were not misquoted. The bulk of your contribution, which can be seen by clicking on the "diff" link on your contributions page, consisted of the addition of the following:

This however has no bearing on the efficacy or speed of the bleed, as cardiac output requires a venous return, as venous supply is severed, this does not occur. The bleed hence relies on gravity and not a heartbeat)

The only other contribution was the replacement of the text ", facilitating a successful" with "during the bleed".

If you had previously contributed under an IP address, then that would not be connected with this account. I'm assuming good faith, but the changes are as I originally quoted them. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Brain stem function

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)

Technicalities, what does the cold hard scientific evidence say, does discussion of the facts around that have a place here etc.

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)

Use in Suicide

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Proper Boltgun Placement.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The BSE myth.

>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)

The Advice for Animal Owners (or AFAO) incident.

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)