It occurs to me

I find your analogy a bit flawed. While there is some similarity between it and what she (it is a she, right? What's with the "sie" and "hirself" stuff? Am I retarded or did I miss something?) is supporting. I myself am at a loss to come up with a better one, but I think that they differ fundamentally in the sense that while she idealistically wants to stop hunting because she finds it cruel to animals, your analogy brings in the destruction or death of another. In other words, if she were saying "We should kill meat eaters, but this is obviously not practical", I feel your analogy would be more suiting. Alas, she is not, and I'd ask you to show how the banishment of hunting would result in the physical harm of people (provided, of course, that we all switched to a vegetarian diet and maintained proper intake levels of minerals and vitamins with dietery supplements).

I guess what I'm saying is that she has a noble goal, realizes that it's not going to happen any time soon and therefore isn't pressing it. She also makes good (poor?) use of her First Amendment right to free speech. At least her stance isn't something like "Well, I think we should kill all the Jews, but I realize this is impractical at present"...