Is there anything logically consistent with your statement? It is incorrect both statistically and factually.

When there is no agreement among the people, no policy can be made, except that consistent with other laws. It is illegal to kill human beings. That is precedent law. So there must exist a clear majority to override that precedent. That is the logic. It isn't that complicated, and the lack of agreement in society prevents any other "logic."

Yes. Libertarians.

In your argument you can replace “altar of the NRA” with “altar of cars” since as many people die in traffic accidents as with firearms. If you remove suicides from guns then it is more than double.
You can also replace that with “altar of affordable and available health care” since more people die due to medical malpractice than from guns and very year.
Or the “altar of drugs” since more people die die to smoking, drinking and drugs than any of the above causes.

All of the above can be fixed by banning smoking, alcohol and drugs, or cheap health care, or limiting speed limits to 12 km/h.

Do you want to live in a world like that?
Yes, freedom has a price.

The statistics regarding gun-related deaths per year in the US are distorted to say the least. Many of those deaths were attributed to suicide, and should not be lumped into the same category as homicides/family troubles/or gang related violence. No children are actually "sacrificed on the altar of the NRA" either, as the blame should be squarely placed upon the criminal who carried out the shooting, many times of which their weapons were acquired by illegal means.

As for the left regarding the value of life, that point could be debateable. So if honesty is the aim here, I'd venture to say that the human race by and large appears to not be inclined towards pro-life tendencies, from waging wars to the willingness to use weapons on others to aborting a fetus after seven months etc. it appears to me most human beings would be disqualified from genuinely being considered pro life. For example, I own weapons and would have no qualms whatsoever in using them against someone who means to bring harm to either myself or my loved ones. Thus I am disqualified from being considered pro life as I'd have no problem wasting someone's life in such a scenario. On the other hand, think about the ethics of say, Buddhist monks and their strict non-violent approach across the board, and you'll get what I'm saying. Likewise, I am generally pro-choice when it comes to the topic of abortion (at least up to 24 weeks anyway), even though from a more direct personal point of view I do not care for such procedures.

Hate to say this dude, being I know how you feel about us Libertarians, but when it comes to issues like that you'll find there's not much contradiction from the Libertarian crowd, as we pretty much respect all individual choices across the board regardless of how we may feel about such from a strictly personal stance.