To defend hunting with the argument ‘I don’t kill for fun, but for food’ only follows if you don’t consume the bodies of farmed nonhuman animals. Implied in this justification is the issue of need: the violence becomes defensible because it isn’t a choice, which would mean you could simply choose not to do violence. If, however, this implied premise isn’t satisfied and you eat both farmed and ‘free’ nonhuman animals, then the argument in question is erroneous and a justification for one’s choice to act violently is required. You may eat the victim; however, the impetus for the killing, given the availability of farmed resources, is one’s choice to do so.
The reason for this choice then isn’t sustenance but something else. When ‘for food’ is proven baseless, however, which, a priori, seems to be the only justifiable excuse for causing suffering in this way, whatever the reason may be, it is reasonable to argue that it’s lacking, ethically. ‘Entertainment’ and ‘tradition’ come to mind as reasons that are truly lacking.
I can foresee an argument against this position that accepts the conclusion but qualifies the premise with ‘healthy food’. Perhaps you do have access to farmed nonhuman animal bodies but these food items aren’t nutritious. Therefore, you eat some flesh from mass sources but you supplement it with hunting. This seems reasonable, however, for it to be applicable, actually, the situation would have to be an extreme circumstance.
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl