I think I agree with the intent of your post (accurate and truthful reporting?) but respectfully disagree with three of your specific points.
In many (most?) parts of the country, firearm registration is NOT required, and reporting that a gun used by a homeowner was 'unregistered' would suggest to many readers that it was an illegal firearm.
In many (most?) parts of the country, a family member or friend is not prohibited from using your firearm. Stating that a gun that was used in self-defense was not owned by that person, might suggest that the person defending themselves had comnitted a crime.
Finally, the specific make and model of a firearm can be difficult for even an 'expert' to determine, and is often completely irrelevant...
You got it. In California, guns are supposed to be registered. In Minnesota, they don't need to be.
My read of the 2nd Amendment doesn't see any limitations on what I own or dictate registration. I'm just tired of the media's obscession with my evil "assault weapon" (varmint rifle or semi-automatic handgun), and no attention to what the perp was attacking me and mine with, nor where they obtained it. In the media's eyes, disarming me (who bothered to go through background checks, waiting periods and training) is more important than finding out that the perp was using a stolen handgun, illegally bought, perhaps traceable to a mis-labeled cargo container from a Chinese ship.
It also irks me that they care so little about my well-being and so much about their agenda, that they don't know the difference between a semi-automatic varmint rifle and a fully-automatic military rifle (Beto!) - not that the 2nd amendment would deny me the latter.