I think hunters should be careful to hunt with a weapon that is capable of getting the intended job done ... and I think that is a reasonable target for regulation ... a hunter should carry an arm that can cleanly kill the hunted animal, so as to prevent inhumane wounding.
If a weapon is more than capable of getting the job done, what's the problem, and why does anyone care? I don't understand all this vehement objection to the Stryker.
If someone wants to hunt our 125 lb. Eastern Carolina deer with a Wesley Richards double in .600 Nitro Express, I don't care.
I don't care if the round over-penetrates.
I don't care if it makes more noise than necessary.
I don't care if it pounds their shoulder into sausage meat.
I don't care if they have an ego the size of Texas.
I don't care if they think using it makes them cool.
I don't care if they just like it and want to use it.
And I don't care if someone wants to shoot a Stryker.
I don't understand why so many do care.
I believe that if I choose to buy an Excalibur recurve crossbow and find that I like it and enjoy shooting it, then other folks should respect my choice and grant me freedom to use the tool of my choosing ... and I'm going to grant the same freedom I expect to others.
If someone likes and wants to shoot a Stryker, they have my blessing to do so without my criticisms. It's a big world with lots of room for difference in such matters.