My argument against "hunting" as justification

I know a fair number of people in this sub won't agree with this, but I wanted to hear your thoughts. I've been reading this sub for a while now, and my main problem with "guns are important for hunting so we can feed ourselves" is that the overwhelming majority of people in this country, including the people in this sub and other pro gun people, DO NOT RELY ON HUNTING TO FEED THEMSELVES. Sure there are exceptions, but if you're relying on hunting (or even fishing) as your main method of sustenance, then you're in the minority. In my experience (midwest) the people that do this are either doing it for sport, or they're doing it because it is cheaper than buying meat from a grocery store. If you're doing it for sport, then that's fine, but you should accept that the sport you are talking about is potentially in jeopardy, because you are in the minority. If you're doing it because it's cost effective, then you are in the same boat as people who are scared their guns are going to be taken away. It's not a necessary component of survival, and this should be acknowledged. It is not like these people would be starving to death without their guns. They would just be buying their meat from the grocery store like the rest of us.<br><br>I have no problem with people who hunt, own guns, etc. But don't try to pretend that your hobby is more important than my hobby just because you "need" to do it (even if you don't). You don't need to hunt. You need food. There are other ways to get it. If I couldn't play basketball anymore, it would be sad, but it wouldn't affect my survival.<br><br>I guess my overall point is that "I need my guns to hunt" is not a valid argument when you don't actually need those guns. I feel like this is an important component of the gun debate that gets swept under the rug by pro gun advocate.