As a gun owner, my primary interest is in the catharsis that comes from what many gunners call "range therapy." Like any other discipline (the association of the author to yoga is apt) it requires complete concentration and allows you to focus so deeply, all the concerns of daily life fall away while engaged in the activity.
Like the author, I have no desire to kill anyone. But when she states "...not to kill, never to kill..." she illustrates the primary disassociation between the liberal tendency towards pacifism and guns. Guns are made to kill, not to wound or intimidate. It is their sole purpose for existing. I am personally prepared to use my gun to kill if absolutely necessary to defend myself or someone I care about. If you are not then you probably should not own one. When my wife went through police academy one of the primary mantras they were taught was "Never point your weapon at something you are not prepared to destroy." Not injur or frighten away. This prepared these future officers to use this tool in the way it was intended. To end the life of whomever they drew it on. If you cannot reconcile this harsh reality with your personal ethics, then gun ownership is not for you.
But, as with other civil liberties, though we may find the ways in which those liberties are view and used by some as abhorrent, we still respect the right in principle. I can only hope my fellow liberals will find the same level of tolerance for us gun owners who have a different moral position on violence as we do for those whose expression of religious belief or free speech varies widely from our own.