Try a bit more of the second word.
1. Risk of accident. Low compared to other activities.
2. Is it a sport? Totally irrelevant.
3. So what? It's not a vegan world and hunting is a tiny fraction of animal deaths.
4. Accidental or wrongful harm (to other animals). This is minuscule in scale. Although antis would have you believe its endemic, the evidence does not support that conclusion.
5. Pollution. Again (outside wetlands) this is trivial. As with the other points, this is not a sufficient reason to ban the activity. Have the same groups or individuals campaigned to ban e.g. picnics? No.
6. Economic arguments are irrelevant. You can't say something should be banned because it is not economically important (even though shooting is).
7. Tradition. Attacks on tradition are moronic and conceited. They rest on the presumption that the clique of savages and professional sphincters promoting bans are wiser and more enlightened than anybody else has ever been. One need only refer to their opinions to discover how wrong that is.
Regardless of any of the points, campaigns for a ban are predicated on a false and dangerous premise in the first place. People who want to ban things are nearly always morally wrong. It is no more their business to have hunting banned, than it is mine to have activities I don't much care for outlawed - football, socialism, homosexuality, Anglicanism, veganism, and wearing orange.
