Review my posts. You will find that I have repeatedly stated that the person who did the shooting may well have been in the wrong, but that we do not have the full picture.
Apparently, the local Law Enforcement folks did not see the need to arrest the shooter or file charges at the time, which says there was at least some significant question in their minds about whether the shooting was unjustified.
It seems you would hold all firearms owners responsible for this event.
If a drunk runs over someone's 5 year-old at three AM, would you blame all drinkers? all drivers? or would you wonder what the 5-year-old was doing in the street at 3 AM?
Whatever extenuating circumstances are involved, the simple fact remains, the kid would be alive today if the kid hadn't been screwing around the guy's house at all.
Inasmuch as I am a hardcore defender of the Second Amendment, I am not sure where you are coming from.
Have you heard my use of the First, Second and Third as a demonstration that the Founders looked to French history as their rationale for the Bill of Rights? Taken together those three amendments even support the idea that the Founders were desirous of protecting America as a "Protestant", not just "Christian" nation.