One point of contention to your response. If I use my firearm to justifiably defend myself and I am sued by the family, they have to prove that my being alive and their family member being dead was wrongful. How is it that I can be attacked with the intent to take my life, and my response with deadly force is wrongful?
Don't shoot the messenger, dunerunner! All I know is what I read in the papers and hear from attorneys. My wife is Clerk of Court for 2 counties here in eastern Iowa (Linn County for 24 years) and that's the kind of nonsense the legal profession and their liberal law schools have given us. I recently heard an example of what I described on the news, but can't remember where it occurred. I will research it.
The President of the USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association) recently offered his members a chance to participate in a blanket bonding benefit whereby the Association carries the "insurance" and members can participate in its protection for a fee. If a member is sued, his legal fees are paid through the bond (with different levels of coverage being available from $50K to $300K or more) and he is defended by a pro-2nd Amendment attorney he selected on joining.
My point is this: If the question you ask could only be decided one way by the courts (and I agree it should be decided in favor of the innocent party who defended him/her self), radical solutions like this offering by the USCCA would not be drawing 10's of thousands of participants, and no one would ever have to worry about losing their entire life's savings to some greedy scumbag. But then there's reality.