Self-Defense Laws

Doesn't that classify as self-defense?

Sure, depending on the scenario.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_S...

Incorrect. Castle doctrine.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

why not defend yourself with something less likly to accidentally kill some random people?

Not quite. Weapon use would be possible as "Rechtfertigender Notstand", https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/34.html . This doesn't just include protection of ones own life, but also of property. However, the force used has to be suitable and proportionate, so shooting someone dead would not be justified. Injuring someone would usually be justified, but will always lan

This is a self defence. If police cannot protect you from bad people then you protect yourself from bad people.

These self defense laws are loose, inconsistent, and use 20/20 hindsight instead of intent. You can believe you are doing the right thing in the moment, but still be convicted because you necessarily acted on imperfect information. You can say the same about many laws, I imagine. My point is that it doesn't matter what someone is trying to steal. They can't know what impact it will have on you; they don't care what impact it will have. By choosing to violate you, they are inh

Violence in self-defense against imminent physical harm is legal in most of the world, although proportionality requirements vary.

He's not living on scene defending his property. A lot of places in the US privilege that scenario for self-defence when otherwise your actions would be prosecuted. If you take a rifle and drive to a trouble spot you could be construed as looking for trouble.

In most countries, the default is whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used and that the defense is proportional to the attack. There’s nothing insane about that - there’s zero reason to arm yourself and millions of reasons not to.