Not much long term in a civilizational collapse, but even then it might still be useful before everyone realizes what's going on.

> And I don’t see the benefit of having a gun with or without ammunition. I would never ever be willing to shoot another person (or even an animal), even to protect myself or mine. I’d rather we are raped, tortured, and killed than harm another person.

I think that's probably an unusually high level of commitment to nonviolence.

It's also creates moral dilemmas: allowing someone to be "raped, tortured, and killed" by others is harming that person. All your principle may mean in practice is the innocent are the ones harmed and the guilty are left unharmed.

Absent a complete ecosystem breakdown, game feeds itself. Obviously if too many people are hunting, there's the risk of killing off all of the game. Which is another excellent reason that is would be a strategy better suited to a less populated area.

It's hard to imagine a more efficient way (measured in money and space required) to supply food for potentially decades.

What a truly bizarre statement, and I seriously doubt you mean it.