[betgo]

I have few comments on this. First of all, I don't believe OP knows the shooter.

In the United States, it is generally self defence if you kill or injure someone robbing you or burglerizing your home. My understanding is this stems from English common law and predates the existance of guns. I am not a lawyer or an expert on the subject. The reason is that you can't tell if a person threatening you is only going to rob you. Also, when these standards were developed, felonies were often pushished by death.

Now when someone has forcibly entered your house and has a gun pointed at someone with the purpose of robbery that is a more clear cut case of self defence than if you suprise a burgler. The case that OP mentions would be self defence anywhere in the US and in most other countries. Killing an unarmed burgler might result in prosecution in some states in the US, and apparently in some countries.

Guns are legal in the US. Machine guns and some other heavy military weapons are not. In some places like NYC, it is almost impossible to get a concealed weapons permit. Getz who shot the 4 punks on the subway who tried to rob him was acquited of all assault charges, but convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without a licence.

In some part of the south, west, and upper New England, it is common for people to carry guns, and was more so in the past. Often people carry knives who don't carry guns. I think this was traditional in Europe for men to carry weapons like swords or whatever. In the US guns were sometimes necessary for travelers for protection against Indians, bandits, and wild animals. Also, their was sometimes not much real law on the frontier and people protected themselves.

he right to keep arms is somewhat ambiguously guarenteed by the Constitution and seen by some as potential protection against the government. In Switzerland, which has an even longer tradition of republican government, most men are issued submachine guns as part of their role in the militia to potentially defend the country.