But you're not really giving sources yourself. Your argument appears to be based on appeal to authority, a well-known logical fallacy. Vets favour stunning therefore it must be more humane. Legislation in so many countries must mean that stunning is more humane. Sorry, but neither is evidence, nor do they represent sources. The arguments I've read that suggest that stunning may lead to just as much distress as not stunning, along with the descriptions of physiological reactions apropos of sensory and motor nervous systems, seem quite persuasive and are not so easily dismissed. So let's have your peer-reviewed studies. This is what you said (and I've stripped out the routine insult): "I think a vet is better qualified to state an opinion on this subject, especially when backed by scientific studies." Good. So let's be having those studies then, chapter and verse.