No, he would not be guilty of murder because he wasn't legally entitled to carry a gun, and Kyle isn't guilty of murder for defending his life against those people attempting to attack him. Both examples are clear cut cases of justifiable homicide while in the defense of one's life or that of anothers.
But in your hypothetical, he would be guilty of possession of a deadly weapon if he were under 18 and didn't have a Hunter Safety certificate.
Just try to get a jury to convict on that Yo-Yo.
You are in love with legalism but our ancestors came up with "trial by jury of his peers" to address this particular mental disease of judges, bureaucrats, and petty tyrant a55holes.
Educate yourself on your legalism perspective: