Analyze total context, not just moment of final action.
Did the target feel threatened, act to defend; was the gun already out.
Legitimate grounds to fear, from his experience.
1. Gun as nuclear option. Only allow as last resort. Analyze the totality, not the "rules" at the last instant. Culpability may remain. The statute in most stand-your-ground states does not look behind the moment of last confrontation. What position were the parties in then. What went before? Redraft statutes to include balancing, include equities, who lured, who responded, mindsets.
2. Gun as deus ex machina.
The gun is the old deus ex machina, the god that descends upon chaos on the stage in early theater, a machine that lowered with the god inside, see http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Terms/deusexmachina.html, that enabled the resolution to
a) descend on the mess,
b) pick sides and act one way or the other, and
c) so solve the problem, at least for the viewpoint of the particular god.
The resolution, by a deus ex machina, the god from the machine, fixes the issue regardless of other claims of right of anyone, wrong, merit, morality. Whip out the hidden gun.
3. Gun as ultimate ha-ha.
As effective now as it was in the 18th Century, hide the barrier, sink the fence, conceal the ditch, create a protective ha-ha as in landscaping. Also keeps in the sheep, trips up trespassers. See http://www.yourgarden.com/qa/eng/special-haha.htm.
The Gotcha. Ace in the hole. The factor that emboldens a coward to provoke. In a confrontation, hide it, provoke a confrontation, then bring it out to end the mano-a-mano in an unfair way. Mano-a-mano, a common concept, for one on one battles. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mano%20a%20mano. Man to man.
The gun used as a ha-ha lets the loser change the rules. Bring on the nuclear option. Lower the deus ex machina. Bang. Or, for old gods, hail Zeus with the lightning bolt.
4. Gun as legitimate defense.
This does not require stand-your-ground. There is a time to retreat.
In stand-your-ground states, it does not matter who instigated, provoked the initial confrontation. Whoever last feels threatened, regardless in role in luring, will win if there are no security video cameras or witnesses, he (she) can get at a gun fast, or, more importantly, if that person had a concealed gun in hand and ready for use. The other party, who believed this would be a mano-a-mano matter, suddenly finds that the loser is going nuclear. Speculation, but how far off?
Vet the circumstances. Is stand your ground working to favor unreasonableness, is it the coward's way out -- plan to have the gun, push the issue, then claim defense.
How to discern: the exploiter, the coward, who brings the gun to the fight when the mano-a-mano he provoked goes bad for him. How to discern that manipulation of law, from the non-instigating victim who is threatened with severe bodily harm, who draws a gun in real self defense.