Common sense control

>>34310039
The Australians got it right.
They still have guns and the right to lethal force in self defense. They also have free health care. and a superior voting/government system. I want our country to follow their lead.

>>34310045
Take it back, you spineless slug
Unless you're a Bong, in which case yeah, that would be an improvement.

>>34310045
*The farmers still have double barrelled shotguns and the right to self defence as long as they don't actually harm their attacker in any way including a scratch

Ftfy
t.Ausfag

>>34310071
>as long as they don't actually harm their attacker in any way including a scratch
but that's incorrect:
s271 Criminal Code;
(2) If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable
apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the person
using force by way of defence believes, on reasonable
grounds, that the person can not otherwise preserve the person
defended from death or grievous bodily harm, it is lawful for
the person to use any such force to the assailant as is
necessary for defence, even though such force may cause
death or grievous bodily harm.

>>34310045
Low quality b8, but /k/ is easy to b8 so have fun getting those (you)s.

>>34310079
Yeah but case law pretty much overwrites this.

The courts made it so Aussies can only do things equal to the initial attack as a response to that attack, not in preparation for it.

>Ex: if a guy is clearly about to punch you in the head, you cannot hit him until he hits you.
>You can only legally kill a person after he kills you
>Thank god I'm a Junkrat main.

>>34310100
>being a Junkrat main
>maining one of the most useless characters in the game besides Reaper

>>34310039
Why do they go so far out of their way to simulate a pistol grip?

I actually prefer a really shallow rifle grip. Love the ergos of a nugget grip

>>34310104
It was a joke about being one of the few characters who can kill post-death besides some rare circumstances with projectile based heroes.

I play mostly Lucio and D.Va because I love my team.

>>34310100
>Yeah but case law pretty much overwrites this.
case law cannot contradict Codified law, it can only provide examples for specific cases when that same incident re occurs.
Ultimately the onus of proof lies on the prosecution and if someone breaks into your house and is found armed and your version is that he attacked you with a knife then the prosecution has to prove otherwise.
It is demonstrably incorrect to say you cannot kill someone in self defence in Australia.
Police use the exact same legislation to shoot people.

>>34310079
You're not from Australia are you?
Long story short, the actual way the laws work is
"As long as you use reasonable force you can defend yourself"
What this means in practical terms is that if somebody jumps you in an alleyway with a knife demanding your wallet, but doesn't actually harm you, you can't attack him as he hasn't actually hurt you yet.
"If the nature of the assault is such as to cause reasonable
apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm"
If all the guy has done is break into your home or threaten you then your average court won't deem any attack on the intruder as
'reasonable force'
There was a case in SA where someone broke into a guys house and the homeowner saw what he thought was a knife in the dark, so he smashed the intruder with a chair, turned out the intruder was a kid with a screwdriver. The home owner got fucked and sent to prison.

Also, I learnt about all these specifics from a guy who taught martial arts for self defence. He preached that you should only actually use self defence if its a 'tried by twelve vs carried by six' kind of ordeal

>>34310120
>If all the guy has done is break into your home or threaten you then your average court won't deem any attack on the intruder as
>'reasonable force'
Incorrect;Here is some SA case law for you. One only needs to show that the belief exists on reasonable grounds. The actual real threat or harm does not even exist or be proven by the defence:
If a defendant raises a defence under this section, the defence is taken to have been established unless the prosecution disproves the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
This will be a complete defence to an offence, including murder, as long as the force used was, in the circumstances as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat the defendant genuinely believed to exist (for example, see Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645). See however the exception to reasonable proportionality in: Home invasion.

>>34310112
It's irrelevant what facts and laws are, it comes down to judge/jury/magistrate's decisions and, statistically, Australia isn't big on letting people get away with killing other people, much less with guns.

Especially after the sob stories that are paraded out in front of them about the ""victim"".

>>34310129
SA case law seems more permissive than QLD in this particular example of self defence against trespass:
In the case of a home invasion (that is, a serious criminal trespass in a place of residence), acting for a defensive purpose or to defend property can be complete defences to an offence, including murder, even if the defendant's conduct was not objectively reasonably proportionate to the perceived threat [s15C Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)].
What is required is that the defendant genuinely believed that the victim was committing or had just committed a home invasion [s 15C(2)(a)].
This section is not available if the victim was an on-duty police officer [s 15C(1)(b)], or if the defendant was themselves engaged in criminal activity that might have given rise to the threat [s 15C(2)(b)], or if the defendant was affected by drugs (unless involuntarily taken, or prescribed or over-the-counter and used appropriately [s 15C(2)(c)]

>>34310130
>It's irrelevant what facts and laws are, it comes down to judge/jury/magistrate's decisions and, statistically, Australia isn't big on letting people get away with killing other people, much less with guns.
>Especially after the sob stories that are paraded out in front of them about the ""victim"".
I'm on your side, it's bullshit how victims families cry about how their little criminal son/friend was innocent and never did anything and nobody can bring up the deceased's criminal history. However it IS demonstrably incorrect that you can't kill someone in self defence in Australia and get away with it.

>>34310039
Its the I'm a Californian cuck gun

Is it bad that I like a bit of regulation because it brings out people's creativity?

It's a driving force for innovation.

>>34310120

There was also a case last year in which a man awoke too find a convicted rapist breaking into his 9 year old daughters room.
He beat the abo scum to death and was charged with murder.