What you don't seem to be able to grasp Wally is that is was THEY (PETA or a similar group) that did THIS (the video).
THIS -- the video -- would NEVER have been done without THEM. THEY found a guy willing to do what they wanted for a fee and paid him to do it. He wouldn't have done it for s**ts and giggles because it did not make monetary sense.
THEY contracted a hit. In most societies legal systems that makes THEM more culpable than the person they contracted. THEY tortured by proxy and that makes THEM worse than the guy who did the cutting.
The video is sick. The guy who cut is sick. The people who paid him to do it for their cause's gain are evil.
Ok, new way of phrasing what I'm trying to say. The public sees this, regardless of who did it, and think: Evil people killing animals. Hunters happen to kill animals, and are lumped in too.
What I'm not conveying properly is that I'm not argueing if it's right to support peta or fight them etc etc etc, I'm saying that they have much more powerful propaganda (regardless of where it came from) to use for their cause. We need to find a way to get our word out there just as powerfully, like I said before, by doing an outward exposure of it, educating the public to proper hunting techniques, the reality of eating meat etc.
I agree with you that what peta did is absolutely intolerable. I don't support peta either, but in not supporting peta I don't believe it's a good idea to do as we are currently doing and simply polarise against them and say everything they say is illegitimate and wrong. ---wait, avoid the flaming for a second --- I say this because much of what is at the very basis of their agenda, before the propaganda, radicallism etc is introduced, is the belief that animal cruelty is wrong. While all people have varying degrees of acceptance of what constitutes cruelty, it is almost universal that your every day person will agree with the statement that "being cruel to an animal is bad" - to put it very simply.
By aligning directly against peta, no matter how effed up and insane they are, we therefore align directly against the idea that animal cruelty is wrong; supporting their claims that hunting is evil, wrong, should be abolished, etc etc etc.
Does what I'm saying make sense? I realise I'm not actually on the same tangent as the majority of the arguements on this thread, but I'm hoping that it's at least introducing some space for discussion that can lead to better ways of reintroducing hunting and firearms back into acceptable society.
