OT - What Punishment would u get in your contry

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the DA in one case asked a woman defending her life in her own home why, after she fled from room to room (thereby allowing the invader to take whatever material goods he wanted) and was finally cornered in the basement she didn't crawl out of the casement window or allow the intruder to rape her in lieu of taking his life. No kidding.

I've never heard of that sort of argument actually being enunciated here in Oz but I'm absolutely certain that many authorities here feel that way. Very frustrating for people like me. I'm no gun nut but I believe that as long as a person has no criminal record, secures their firearms properly and is properly traned in the use and maintenance of firearms, they should be allowed to keep firearms in their homes and be allowed to defend themselves (on their own property) with them. Now that it is a non-issue over whether law abiding citizens can defend themselves, with firearms, in their own homes (because the government has taken nearly all the previously legal firearms away from people) the debate has moved to knives. Here in Perth the number of murders and serious assaults using knives has increased significantly in the past few years.

Back to the original question I'm not sure about the punishment here in Australia for owning an M-82 but there was a case here involving ex-Australian Army Captain Shane Della-Vedova who was involved in the theft and sale of nine LAW-66 rocket propelled grenade launchers (the media here still insists on calling them rocket launchers the fools). Only one of the weapons was ever recovered which is a bit scary. He was sentenced to 10 years prison last year.

[Grimace]

Funny that you mentioned that case about the intruder, Webstral. Here in Montana they're working on putting through legislation that will grant all homeowners the full and absolute right to shoot and potentially kill anyone that breaks into your house.

Of course, I think many people in other states view Montanans as gun toting hicks, so I guess it'll be okay for us to have a clear conscious when we blow an intruder away.

[General Pain]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Funny that you mentioned that case about the intruder, Webstral. Here in Montana they're working on putting through legislation that will grant all homeowners the full and absolute right to shoot and potentially kill anyone that breaks into your house.

Of course, I think many people in other states view Montanans as gun toting hicks, so I guess it'll be okay for us to have a clear conscious when we blow an intruder away.

I read something similar; where a US police officer (can't remember the state) said if you're gonna shoot someone ;see to it that they are in your house before you do it.

Somthing like:
"Tresspassers will be shot;survivors will be shot again!"

[Littlearmies]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Funny that you mentioned that case about the intruder, Webstral. Here in Montana they're working on putting through legislation that will grant all homeowners the full and absolute right to shoot and potentially kill anyone that breaks into your house.

Of course, I think many people in other states view Montanans as gun toting hicks, so I guess it'll be okay for us to have a clear conscious when we blow an intruder away.

Here in the UK we had a big fuss about this a few years ago. Essentially the common law position is that you are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend you and yours from attack (I think that position is pretty common to all common law countries), you are also allowed to use reasonable force if you have a reasonable fear of attack. This requires the court, and the jury, to "get into your head" and decide whether or not your behavious was "reasonable" under the circumstances as you saw them at the time.

Now this obviously leaves a whole bunch of things open to interpretation but in the case in point a homeowner who had suffered several prior burglaries shot a couple of burglars using an illegally held pump action shotgun (the normal justification for holding a shotgun licence in the UK is sport or pest control - neither of which requires a pump action).

From memory the guy lived out in the country and police reaction times were accordingly slow, after previous incidents he had said he would take care of the problem himself. In this instance the two burglars had (I think I recall) knives. As it turned out the legal issue that got him a conviction was whether he had the necessary fear for his life to make firing "reasonable" under the circumstances. Also his statements that he would "take care of it himself" indicated pre-planning on his part - which is also legally a no-no here (the common law intent is that when confronted with a situation you have the right to defend yourself but you are not allowed to prepare for such a situation). This guy had also booby trapped his property which is also a no-no under English common law.

He was originally convicted of murder but this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal when the Court of Appeal accepted the fact that his mental state put his actions in the category of manslaughter rather than murder:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1627540.stm

But giving people absolute rights as in Montana is, in my opinion, a bad idea - you are always going to get someone who shoots the double glazing salesman because they are paranoid and then claims protection under the law. (Not that I'm suggesting that shooting double glazing salesmen might not be the right thing to do )

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

I've never heard of that sort of argument actually being enunciated here in Oz but I'm absolutely certain that many authorities here feel that way. Very frustrating for people like me. I'm no gun nut but I believe that as long as a person has no criminal record, secures their firearms properly and is properly traned in the use and maintenance of firearms, they should be allowed to keep firearms in their homes and be allowed to defend themselves (on their own property) with them. Now that it is a non-issue over whether law abiding citizens can defend themselves, with firearms, in their own homes (because the government has taken nearly all the previously legal firearms away from people) the debate has moved to knives. Here in Perth the number of murders and serious assaults using knives has increased significantly in the past few years.

Back to the original question I'm not sure about the punishment here in Australia for owning an M-82 but there was a case here involving ex-Australian Army Captain Shane Della-Vedova who was involved in the theft and sale of nine LAW-66 rocket propelled grenade launchers (the media here still insists on calling them rocket launchers the fools). Only one of the weapons was ever recovered which is a bit scary. He was sentenced to 10 years prison last year.

I definitely agree. We have the same problem in France and knives are an increasing problem. That's also why the film "Bowling for Columbine" was false. It never took anything but guns into account. That's also why we have many hunting accidents.

By the way, do you remember the scene in Crocodile Dundee, the scene where he draws out a big knife in face of the small city jerk. I know someone for whom it became true. That friend was coming back at night, and in the subway, from his sword class when he was assaulted by a guy holding a knife. Saddly for that guy, they had a saber course that day and that friend drew out a cavalry saber. In the outcome, the guy who assaulted him left the spot in underwears.

Another one, the only time I was assaulted with a knife, the guy was so stupid that he never realized that we had walked right in front of a police station. I'm still laughing my ass off when remembering that one.

A last one that occured in my last year of High School. Two brothers were in charge of security (both had a won a European championship in Martial Arts and both were of the tall large types). They (one with a broken arm) were assaulted in Paris by three guys (1 knive, 1 axe, 1 big woodstick). The wounded brother step aside and the other one said outloud that he was taking care of this. I still don't understand why these guys kept attacking. They each ended up for three months in an hospital.

Therefore, don't panic and you have a good chance to end up with the upper hand except of course if the guy is crazy. Then, you end up dead Oops!

I'm still against guns at home but that's for an entirely different reason. Most people I know would tell you that they have it to defend themselves and scare someone away. I usually tell them that they are dead meat. In my familly (mother's side), we are taught to use firearms early but we are also taught that if you ever draw a firearm out that's only with one goal in mind: shooting down the other guy with no hesitation and with intention to kill. Moreover, at a time when we thought someone broke into our house (I was a kid), my father took out the gun and I took out my crossbow. I was more scared of him than of the guy who could have appeared in front. A trembling person who had never used a gun standing behind you with a 12 gauge rifle in his hand is a scary situation. As a result, I don't have a firearm at home.

For the Barret, I have no clue what the penalty would be. Since we had a member of a town administration (the guy with the RPG took him for a cop ) being blown up with an RPG they are reworking on that part of the law. As a result, it would be at least 3 years.