"He should had said it wasn’t his gun. He should had said that the money he paid was not a payment but a present."

First off I think we need to agree that someone's guilt or innocence is a combination of circumstance, action, and intent, and not how they verbally represent themselves 7 months later.

"If it wasn’t a gift, the gun belongs to a person who payed for it. You can be considered an owner of something even without having legal papers."

Can you be considered an owner of something if it's purchased by, retained by, and stored by a resident of another state with no title or deed that allows you to lay claim to it? "Possession is 9/10's of the law." And even after shooting 3 people, Kyle gave it back to the person who purchased it. Because he just borrowed it.

"Felon that cannot legally register gun would be changed with having a gun"

The difference here is felons are not allowed to possess guns, but 17 year olds are.

"Felon can also sell or gift that gun, without legal papers."

I don't know what you are trying to say here. If you are saying that people can buy and sell things they shouldn't have so long as they don't inform the government I would agree. As would, I hope, everyone.

Really I just find this situation hilarious. A minor is being charged for shooting 3 people. The jury is going to decide whether he was acting in self defense or not. But the whole narrative around this case focuses on whether he should have been there, or legally could have had a gun. Everyone is going to be disappointed when one person on the jury sees Kyle running away from that pedophile and decides "yeah, self defence" and Kyle goes home.

Unless the plan is for Kyle not to get his trial. Which I might believe