I start to wonder if we should trust people who talk like that with guns.
No, really:
Okay. I'll take you seriously on that point, because it's true, the general disregard or disdain for civilized society presented in the shooter rights argument is pretty well established. Sometimes people think they're being clever, somehow, but it doesn't play nearly as well as those would expect or hope or presume or whatever.
You seem to be considering the act of killing in a vacuum. If you need the fact of civilized society explained to you vis à vis firearms, then you're doing it wrong.
State holds the monopoly on coercive force; individual does not.
The thing about the shooter's rights movement is that it is abjectly selfish; it's not really about the keeping of arms, but the bearing, insofar as what the movement is really after is to threaten and hunt and kill other human beings for any reason under the sun. In the end, it is a political fight to expand the reservation; there are circumstances in which we, as individuals, are licensed to exercise coercive violence; the shooter rights argument seeks to expand the range of circumstances.
To the other, I live in a time when "Mexican" is the new "nigger", such that we really are hearing "MS-13 lover" talk among the right wing, and I'm aware of at least one shooter rights advocate who uses the MS-13 argument to disqualify people from humanity. Additionally, there is this delightfully awful video, and I can't tell you how much America feels like itself, now, having seen it, of an angry woman making slanty-eyes out her car window and cussing out a Korean-American veteran and telling him to go back to China.
So it's probably best to not be expanding the justified homicide reservation right now. And in a society demonstrating its difficulty discerning threats, some might think they are clever for clumsy pretenses of ignorance, but this is also the role they choose for participating in civic homicide advocacy; and for all the years we have waited, expecting this advocacy to eventually make some useful point, the only consistent point and purpose about it has been antisociability, a determined effort to invent more pretenses of reason, freedom, and necessity for killing other human beings.
If you've a thesis you're after, then you might as well just state it.
If, to the other, you're just asking people to put in work so you can complain about what's wrong with whatever they say, then it's probably best to acknowledge that up front, as well.
What re-evaluation would be in order, according to your question? That's the problem with the argument of the question mark, JAQing off, Just Asking Questions, Endless Pointless, or however we might describe this fallacious method; there is something those questions equal, but you won't say it until you coax a setup out of someone. What is it you're looking for? Just come right out and say it; the point either has merit or not, and no amount of posturing for a rhetorical sleight is going to help if the point just doesn't have merit beyond word games.
