Personally, All, I think it's ridiculous to have anything more than a rifle. Semiautomatic assault weapons, revolvers, handguns, shotguns, and especially ordinance weaponry are a little absurd. A rifle alone is enough.
Frankly, I don't think it'd make it better to make firearms harder to get, either. Yes, only a handful would be able to possess them. However, it also means that if it's possible for someone to get ahold of one when they shouldn't be able to, they would have a huge advantage over a larger portion of the rest of the citizens. Which is... well... not okay.
That said, I'm not for loose firearm legislation. If I'm quite honest, I personally feel that they should only be used in possession of peacekeepers in profession (i.e. police officers). I also understand that there would be problems with this in case of a corrupt government, which is the only reason I approve of firearm access in the United States.
I mean, the whole topic is like walking on glass. Both sides generally have great points, but there is not a happy medium. I am not quite sure where I truly stand.
Fact of the matter is, the burglar entered the home. That's illegal. The homeowner open fired on the burglar. That's not illegal. If what I gather is correct, the homeowner open fired on the burglar while the burglar was retreating. That should be illegal, where both parties would get held accountable. Chances are, that's not what will happen, though. Chances are the homeowner will get off scott-free.