I'd say the concern is the threshold at which you'd consider killing. While the idea of slaughter may be repugnant to you, euthanasia might be more acceptable. Not all animals I've killed have been for food. I've had my share of "Ole Yeller" moments, and it is not something I care much for, but I accept that it is part of my responsiblity for the animals under my care. We all have thresholds for which we can accept killing. Slaughter for survival is less objective than putting an animal out of it's misery, but the end result is the same. The threshold is choice. Both ought to be based on respect for the animal, but one includes the element of compassion, which is a greater motivator than hunger may be. So long as you have a choice, you will defer from the harshness of reality. It is thus for most all of our life's events. We all prefer our cocoons.

I think even Euell Gibbons had a pretty tough time of it trying to live just off the plant life he could find. Edible plants are a way of subsisting until we get lucky enough to bag meat and fat. We are not herbivores, and the only way vegans get by is due to cultivation of replacement food sources that you're not going to get in the wild no how. There's never been a hunter-gatherer group in all of history that sustained itself exclusively by gathering and consuming edible plants. Either they supplemented their diet with meat, or they didn't make it. There are no exceptions.

I think that, so long as their is a choice in your life, you will not be willing to kill for food. That is not an indictment or derogatory, it is just an observation. In this day and age, it doesn't make you any less a man (or woman). It is just part of who you are for now. Under different conditions, I would expect you to react differently, including the possibility that you might consider killing to eat. Until then, I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. A man's gotta know his limitations (hey, that's a catchy little phrase!).