So what would be your argument in the court case? How are you going to hang the jury of rational thinking people that arrows sticking out of animals that are suffering badly is not a problem. Flying off on a tangent and screaming about how dangerous rifles are sure won't help help your case.

It can be spun both ways. I think it would be a whole lot easier to spin a group not responsible enough to police what they do over one taking steps to ensure that safe, logical and ethical standards have been set forth and taught to those participating. Take it from someone in a litigous profession, your argument isn't going to hold water. A good attorney would wet himself listening to your argument waiting for a chance to repsond.

How many times have the antis used or tried to use the Hunters Education Program in court as you've stated? It is mandated by the states.Its been around since the 50's, there has been ample time to trash the hunting crowd with the argument. To my knowledge that hasn't been done as it would only prove to further the hunters cause to any rational thinking human.

I'm not a socialist, far from it. But I'm also not missing the forest for the trees.