New Zealand Bans Assault Weapons

[fredd bear]

 Just so.

I was always grateful that I never found myself in that position.IE I managed to actively avoid going to Vietnam.

You hit the nail on the head; it is the function of a firearm to kill people.  I would not be able to live with myself if I killed another person, either with my car, or in self defence

In Oz, our laws on self defence may be different than say the US; in defending oneself, one is only permitted to use 'reasonable force' .You better have a good lawyer if you kill some one 'in self defence"

What about pre-emptive self defence?

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

As I understand our self defence laws, the criterium  is'  reasonable force', which has a specific meaning at law, but I'm not a lawyer..

 I am aware that if say  an unarmed burglar broke into your house and  you shot him , you might be charged.  Further, you might be sued by the burglar.

In context of the real world, self defence rarely comes up here. I suspect that may be due to the law rather than people trying to plead self defence.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))


In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence is a legal defence to a charge of causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive. 

Self-defence in murder
In Viro v The Queen,[1] Justice Mason formulated six propositions on the law of self-defence in murder trials. Thus, a full acquittal is achieved if the jury finds that an accused reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger. In Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions,[2] the victim rented a unit from the defendant. The defendant became increasingly annoyed with the victim who kept leaving the security gates of the unit unlocked. After one heated exchange, the defendant was stabbed by the tenant. The defendant, fearing that the tenant was about to get a gun from his car, rushed off and got his shotgun. The defendant returned, and shot and killed the tenant. The majority of the High Court said at 661:[3][4]
The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide.
The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Burgess; R v Saunders held that 'the concept of self-defence only arises where the actions of the accused by way of self-defence are directly taken against the person threatening the accused or another’s being or property.'[5][6][7]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_(Australia)