Should hunters be limited for the amount of amuntion they are allowed to have in their magazine?

I strongly believe that hunters should have a limit of ammunition that they are allowed to have in their gun or magazine when they are hunting. I believe this because I think that it is fair to the animals because it gives them a chance to get away. Currently hunters can have as many bullets in their weapon that it can hold, some magazine are capable of holding over seven shells. Archery and muzzle loader are the only two forms of hunting that I consider to be true hunting due to the fact that the hunters only have one shot. If they miss the animal has the opportunity to escape because it take time to reload a muzzle loader or to string another arrow. If a rifle hunter were to miss he/she would be able to simply reload the gun at a fast enough time to take multiple shots at the animal. Because of this fact, I think rifle hunters have a tendency to be more bellicose when hunting. Their first shot may be well aimed but if they do not hit their target they go off on a shooting frenzy and simply just try to hit the animal. By doing so, reckless shots are being taken and this causes meat to be damaged and is an unsafe practice. If other animals are near by the may find themselves in the line of fire or a stray bullet may have to potential to find another hunter far off in the distance.

By having a set limit of bullets that hunters are are allowed to carry there would be more true hunting. Hunters would have to work harder to make their kills and would be conservative on their firing. There would be better sportsmanship taking place in the field because they would be have to make good shot and would not have such a wide margin for reckless shooting. The animals would have a fair chance to get away making hunting more so hunting than simply just shooting. It is also better for the
animals because many rifle hunters are capable of shooting far distances, but very few hit their mark. When they do not, they fire and fire until they hit the animal. If they are limited to their ammo they would have to get closer to the animal and develop better shots there for lessing the factor of reckless firing.

I believe that by enforcing this concept there would also be a down fall in anit-hunting attacks saying how hunting is unethical and unfair to the animals. This would be a great regulation to have to protect hunting against these blast from organizations against hunting. The question of hunting being unfair would be sized down dramatically and the out look on the sport/activity would be considered more moral then it currently is. I think the regulation should state that any rifle hunter is only allowed to carry five shells at a time and only two may be in the rifle or magazine. I know that many rifle hunter will be apposed to this but it will better them down the road as well as the image of hunting in societies eyes. The main concern that would be

brought up would be safety. I know that there would be people that would argue that if they have limited amounts of ammo and there was, for example, a bear or mountain lion attack, there would be a safety issue. But the reality of the matter is that any hunter can and should carry a protection pistol incase of these attacks. I know as an archery and muzzleloader hunter that I do when ever I go out. So the case that this regulation would be a safety hazard would be a small and weak one.