What do you mean
Are you for or against discussion of the topic or for or against what is in the topic.
Plain speaking.
l. I have no opposition to crossbows. As long as I don't have to buy a crossbow and can continue to shoot a compound bow. Archers have nothing to do with acceptance or rejection of crossbows. It depends entirely on the number of archers and gun users available to take the necessary harvest. Besides, crossbows were around in the middle ages of Europe.
2. antler restriction. Again, nothing to do with hunters desires. Has to do with the number of deer to be harvest, and the number of available hunters to harvest those deer. States with fewer hunters have more liberal hunting limits on deer.
3. Newbies with no training in the military or in hunting. The purpose of hunting is to kill the deer as soon as possible. In war, wounding an enemy is often as effective, or more effective, than killing the enemy. Any idiot that wants to "militarily" shoot a deer more than three times, never butchered a gut shot deer.
Deer you eat. In the military, the enemy isn't on the menu.
4. Headshots can be avoided on frontal or side shots. It's not war; the deer isn't shooting back at you.
On frontal shots, I like the neck shot, where I sever the main artery running from the heart to the brain. Most newbies wouldn't know what an artery is. They seem to get an idea about hitting a "basketball."
5. Every deer I shot is a future " hunter's stew" or a roast of an aging deer that was marinated by a french chef. I was trained by a hotel chef and meat market butchers. Not by the general hunter who inhabits a hunting club.