I don't see "owning a gun" there, which just makes this just your interpretation, nothing more.
Are you defensively viable without a gun, against someone with a gun, and are you likely to run into that situation? That's a question that you should be free to decide. Furthermore, I don't see why that's a decision you can morally impose upon another person. If a society can say that the life-and-death decisions around abortion should be the domain of individual choice, then how can this be different for the the life-and-death decisions around personal defense? Both are fundamentally about the right of self-determination with regards to the integrity of one's own life and one's own body.
Again, that is your interpretation. And you could interpret it to mean pretty much whatever you wanted, including preemptively killing someone who could pose a threat in the future.
Again, that is your interpretation. And you could interpret it to mean pretty much whatever you wanted, including preemptively killing someone who could pose a threat in the future.
No, of course not. Preemptive violence simply makes one a violent criminal. Merely possessing the capability does not. The people who do hold to that interpretation are Antifa and the crowd that incites people to violence. In the US and the industrialized west, that would be the Far Left.
I don't see "owning a gun" there, which just makes this just your interpretation, nothing more.