@falcon63
Every weapon has it's effective range, your argument is that guys are going to push beyond their effective open sight range and wound more animals so therefore we need to allow scopes. Keep on your arguments path: If a guy will shoot beyond their effective open sight range then that same guy will shoot beyond their effective scope range and wound more animals. The argument doesn't stop--wounding arguments can be used to justify guided missile systems. That's why it's a bad argument, it basically assumes the worst in people in order to allow more and more tech that doesn't stop.
As for your caliber argument, that's apples and oranges. We can require weapons to have the minimum ability to kill. This is applied to both rifles and bows with poundage requirements. It sets a minimum but doesn't assume folks are slobs and it's applied to all weapons. I have yet to see a requirement that all rifles have to have scopes, and I have never heard an archer claiming they need a scope on their bow so they don't wound more animals.
The wounding argument is a façade that seems to make sense until you challenge it, then it falls apart quickly. That's why I hate it--it's lazy thinking
and we are all still waiting of SFW's technology letter--must be top secret!