Gosh. Understand what I am saying. For the time, Im sure it was an advance. But the times have moved on.
Moved on to what? Either penetrating-bolt stunners which mash brain matter into the animal's blood stream, or non-penetrating stunners which are not always successful at rendering the animal totally and irreversably unconscious?
Is it more or less humane to have sudden, severe, permanent loss of blood to the brain of the animal resulting in swift, permanent unconsciousness within about two seconds (according to the man who literally wrote the book on the physiology of domestic animals: Professor H. H. Dukes of Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine), or an captive-bolt or electric stun which can result in the animal regaining consciousness halfway through the slaughter?
The fact is that killing animals for food is anathema to some people regardless of how the killing is done. It's easier for PETA and their fellow travelers to whip up public furor against Jews, or against rich people and their foie gras, than against meat-eating in general, but it still supports the openly-stated PETA goal of "total animal liberation" and a ban on all meat-eating.
First they came for the Jews...