Australian laws are ####ed compared to america

[STEEV888]

I also replied to this post as follows:

Excessive force cannot be used to remove a trespasser as this is an assault. A better course of action is to call the police and later sue the trespasser for compensation for any damage caused. In some situations it may be appropriate to apply for a restraining order to stop a person from trespassing again. The police can be called to remove trespassers who will not leave when told to or, who return within twenty four hours. The police can prosecute the trespasser who faces a penalty of up to $2500 fine and imprisonment for up to six months [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 17a].

this refers to. if you see somebody randomly on your property then start beating the hell out of them without reason.
thats what the steps are for.
if they are trying to stab you. you shoot them (or stab them back). you do not get charged.

 

[torch]

you say you dont mind if they are made permanently in-operable, who will compensate me the value lost on my now non-collectables

If you are so attached to your guns, what will it matter what other people will want to pay for them? But they were an investment, and you didnt see the writing on the wall? shucks, money in an australian bank is about the only really safe option.

the time period of the quoted situations is reguardless (by the way its was the 1940's not 30's), whether it happened yesterday or 4000 years ago it has been shown in History over and over again that an Armed populace/Irregular force can often put up more of an affront to the enemy then Regular Military forces, such as the Boars in South Africa, Yugoslavia, Norway, Finland, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan

whereas on the the other hand an unarmed populace is always at the mercy of the Government or Ruling Class
such as, Germany in the third Reich era, the entire Eastern Bloc under the Soviet Council, many African nations, China there is many many examples of this.

a group of people will always be apprehensive about oppressing another group if they are armed

are you really serious, giving all australians a rifle is now the answer to defending our shores, yeh, that will work when we are carpet bombed from a couple of planes at 30000ft.
Oh and if Julia gets out of hand with more taxes we can always storm parliament with our guns,, call the asylum!

 

[Matty.b]

are you really serious, giving all australians a rifle is now the answer to defending our shores, yeh, that will work when we are carpet bombed from a couple of planes at 30000ft.
Oh and if Julia gets out of hand with more taxes we can always storm parliament with our guns,, call the asylum!

works with Switzerland why do you think nobody is game to attack them (besides the banks) and if an enemy were to carpet bomb as opposed to using surgical strikes chances are they would carpet bomb regardless of the "armed" situation of the populace, and you right about storming the parliment if something is wrong....but we should do that now even with out fire-arms, i mean look at the French and what they can do with power of the people

 

[Reaper]

you say you dont mind if they are made permanently in-operable, who will compensate me the value lost on my now non-collectables

It's an entirely different argument weather it would be now collectable or not. As for compensation, there are precedents which recompense owners of values ranging from zero up to quite substantial amounts that are determined on a case by case basis.

the time period of the quoted situations is reguardless (by the way its was the 1940's not 30's), whether it happened yesterday or 4000 years ago it has been shown in History over and over again that an Armed populace/Irregular force can often put up more of an affront to the enemy then Regular Military forces, such as the Boars in South Africa, Yugoslavia, Norway, Finland, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan

whereas on the the other hand an unarmed populace is always at the mercy of the Government or Ruling Class
such as, Germany in the third Reich era, the entire Eastern Bloc under the Soviet Council, many African nations, China there is many many examples of this.

a group of people will always be apprehensive about oppressing another group if they are armed

:rofl: are you seriously arguing that Australia is about to be invaded??? 1930's, '40s, whatever, all of the examples are not even remotely applicable to Australia now.

Should Australia come under threat at some stage in the future (and these things don't happen over night), there may be a justification to arm the general population. Till this happens there is no justification for firearms to be in the general urban population.

Reaper

 

[Reaper]

it's not so much about gun laws that is the problem here in Australia.
it's the right to defend yourself & your property.

they say we have the right, but if you happen to seriously injure or kill the offender, then you will usually find yourself landing up in jail.
my belief is, if someone has forceably entered your property (be it a car or a house) and/or threatened your life with a weapon, then you should be within your rights to inflict whatever damage to that person as YOU feel necessary (rather than the court feels necessary as it stands today). If that means killing the offender, then so be it.

You are allowed to use "reasonable force" when defending yourself. Police have similar constraints when arresting people. If your life is in clear and imminent danger with a knife to your throat (for example), and your partner smashed the guy over the head with a bar and killed him, it is highly unlikely that any charges would be successful. Of course there would be inquiries by the coroner and Police and it would not be a pleasant situation - these things never are.

If the guy had a knife 15m away and was waving it about, and you had the opportunity to flee, then you are advised to do just that. Killing the guy in that situation would most probably get you in very hot water.

Reaper

 

[Calaber]

You are allowed to use "reasonable force" when defending yourself. Police have similar constraints when arresting people. If your life is in clear and imminent danger with a knife to your throat (for example), and your partner smashed the guy over the head with a bar and killed him, it is highly unlikely that any charges would be successful. Of course there would be inquiries by the coroner and Police and it would not be a pleasant situation - these things never are.

If the guy had a knife 15m away and was waving it about, and you had the opportunity to flee, then you are advised to do just that. Killing the guy in that situation would most probably get you in very hot water.

Reaper

On another thread recently, I wrote that a few years back in Brisbane, a 70 year old man was confronted in his home by a 17 year old thief, armed with a branch from a tree. The old bloke had a rifle and shot the thief, killing him. After police investigated, the old bloke was not charged, because you are allowed to take reasonable steps to protect yourself and the only way a frail 70 year old could defend himself against a fit 17 year old was with a firearm. In that case, he used "reasonable force" to defend himself.

 

[Darren_L]

You are allowed to use "reasonable force" when defending yourself. Police have similar constraints when arresting people. If your life is in clear and imminent danger with a knife to your throat (for example), and your partner smashed the guy over the head with a bar and killed him, it is highly unlikely that any charges would be successful. Of course there would be inquiries by the coroner and Police and it would not be a pleasant situation - these things never are.

If the guy had a knife 15m away and was waving it about, and you had the opportunity to flee, then you are advised to do just that. Killing the guy in that situation would most probably get you in very hot water.

Reaper

all good in theory, but where the problem lays is what is defined at the time as 'reasonable force' and how much time does the victim have at the time to determine what is 'reasonable force'. It's easy in hindsight to figure out what is 'reasonable force', but not so easy to figure out when you walk into your house and there is someone creeping around in the dark.
How do you know how the thief is going to respond ? If you startle a thief going through your house, how do you know if he's going to pull a knife or a gun on you. As far as I'm concerned, if you find a thief in your house, you treat that thief as if they do have a weapon ie belt the guy over the head with an iron bar, because it's too late once you get a knife stuck in your heart or a bullet in your head.

People arre being charged and convicted unfarily of defending themselves with force. I actually sat through a court case which convicted a guy of grevous bodily harm because a guy threatened him with a broken bottle at a pub. The victim responded by beating the daylights out of the guy and causing the offender serious injuries. The offender was charged with threatening a person with a deadly weapon, but the victim was also charged with grevous bodily harm. How is that justice ?

Why should thieves or anyone who threatens you or your loved ones lives (without justified reason) have ANY rights ? As far as I'm concerned they lose all their rights the moment they decide to violate your rights. The victim should be able to take whatever action they feel as necessary against the offender, without fear of legal repercussions.

 

[torch]

works with Switzerland why do you think nobody is game to attack them

and they have Roger Federer too, you think he can slice and dice up his opponent with a tennis racquet, wait till you see what he can do to a mig fighter with a swiss army knife!

Seriously, all you are demonstrating is the level of irrational thoughts that must be going through the heads of many gun fantatics.

 

[Matty.b]

and they have Roger Federer too, you think he can slice and dice up his opponent with a tennis racquet, wait till you see what he can do to a mig fighter with a swiss army knife!

Seriously, all you are demonstrating is the level of irrational thoughts that must be going through the heads of many gun fantatics.

so the point that the Government arms the populace doesnt mean anything....or are you choosing not to do research?

i must point out that to me your lineof thought is irrational isnt it amazing how that happens as the old saying goes "those that yell fascist the loudest are often the first to resort to fascist tactics"

now i dont wish this thread to go down hill and become an exhausting back and forth folley, please keep it civil

 

[Matty.b]

It's an entirely different argument weather it would be now collectable or not. As for compensation, there are precedents which recompense owners of values ranging from zero up to quite substantial amounts that are determined on a case by case basis.



:rofl: are you seriously arguing that Australia is about to be invaded??? 1930's, '40s, whatever, all of the examples are not even remotely applicable to Australia now.

Should Australia come under threat at some stage in the future (and these things don't happen over night), there may be a justification to arm the general population. Till this happens there is no justification for firearms to be in the general urban population.

Reaper

im not saying i believe we are to be invaded, you can choose to over look the facts if you wish but please provide you own research stating the opposite of differing point of view, its easy to critisize but harder to back it up