Well, excuse me. I have never hunting in a state that has a minimum foot-pound requirement for hunting. I actually did not know that there was such thing, so I stand corrected.

Every state that I have hunted in (granted, only 3) has a minimum caliber requirement, not foot-lbs. For example, in the state I hunt in the most (Ohio), the .45 Long Colt is a legal handgun caliber.

As for foot-pounds, I stand by my original statement- foot-pounds do not kill deer. Have you ever bow-hunted? I have done plenty of bow-hunting, and I don't know how many foot-pounds of KE an arrow possesses, but it's not much. An arrow kills by direct tissue damage and blood loss. As long as there is enough kinetic energy for the arrow to fully penetrate the deer, it is enough to kill it.

A bullet kills also by direct tissue damage, as well as through hydrostatic shock. Now, foot-pounds are a great way to measure how much hydrostatic shock, I'll give you that. But large, slow-moving bullets (i.e. many handguns, some muzzleloder & shotgun loadings) do not cause much hydrostatic shock because the bullet simply is not traveling fast enough. Therefore, these bullets (i.e. a .45 cal 250 grain bullet) moving at a relatively slow velocity kill mostly by direct tissue damage. My argument was that foot-pounds are not a good way to measure this type of bullet. What is more important is how much the bullet expands, what kind of wound channel it creates, and if it penetrates far enough to reach the vitals.

A big, slow-moving bullet may not kill as quickly or spectacularly as a fast-moving one, but it still can get the job done.