Suse,

Why did you bring up guns, do you have some fixation with them?

Just how do you tell that someone who illegally breaks into your home isn't armed with a gun and that they don't intend to kill you?

Open a dialogue?

I would suggest a little reading of the law as well.

Well Is Mise, if you are looking to kill anyone who breaks into your home, how were you planning to do it?

If you do decide to beat an intruder to death with a frying pan, then it will depend on which state of Australia you live in as to how the courts will deal with you.

I looked up Wikipedia and found the following quote, amongst a minefield of different laws:
"Unlike South Australian law, s420 of the NSW Crimes Act explicitly states that self-defence is not available as a defence to murder if death is inflicted to prevent criminal trespass.
In November 2005, pursuant to recommendations from the Law Reform Commission for Victoria, the Victorian legislature introduced new laws regarding self defence. Among them, a new offence of defensive homicide was created: where the accused's belief in the need for the force applied in self-defence was unreasonable, s/he may be convicted of an offence less serious than murder."

To me, it appeared that most states say you won't be charged with murder if you kill an intruder or a trespasser with 'unreasonable force', but you will probably get manslaughter.
If, however, you were really fighting for your life, then you probably wouldn't be charged.

Dear Suse,

<<However, if the perpetrators don't have weapons, and are just there to steal, then I don't think death by firing squad, without a jury, should be attempted.>>

Indeed, if the intent is to punish the perpetrator, then NO, it would be wrong for the house-owner to penalise them, neither by death nor in any other way.

If however, the intent is to save your precious belongings - especially such belongings of sentimental value, or health value, or information value, that could not be replaced with money, and it is in fact possible to save them at the cost of the life or limb of the perpetrator, then it is most legitimate to do what is necessary (yet only the minimum) to preserve them.

I can't see why not: this is not a matter of punishment - but of common sense!

Israel's "Dromi Law" allows just that.

Suseonline, "the law says we can use reasonable force against those breaking into our homes. I would certainly ring 000, wouldn't you?"

Taking the last sentence first, are you sure you ever worked as a nurse in a hospital? Ever asked why the victims why 000 didn't prevent the attack? To SOB with the breaking bar who is already in your home, "Please pass my mobile to dial 000 and would you kindly wait for the next available police patrol?".

Taking your first sentence, do you have any idea of what 'reasonable' means? Do scroll down the text in this link because that word is there. Now define 'authorised' for me.

http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/cscp/personalSafety/adults/Dealing+with+confrontation.htm

What might those terms mean to the police, Prosecutor and judge in a peaceful, comfy, air-conditioned court where an ordinary citizen in in the dock trying to defend himself against the unfair reversed standard of proof for defending himself and his loved ones in his own home and the assailant was injured in some way, maybe even by the homeowner's defensive German Shepherd bitch?

Now I realise that this has all been put to you on numerous previous occasions and you have always come back later as on this thread as though the salient facts have never been put to you before. However other readers must understand that home burglaries and drug crimes are now commonplace and many ordinary people do get hurt. Look here for your street and house,

http://www.crimemap.info/

Do police believe that 000 will save them or their own families in their own homes? Maybe not, see here,

http://tinyurl.com/Police-fears

All I am asking though is for the foul reversed onus of proof be removed as in NSW at the initiative of the Shooters and Fishers Party who are not subject to the deals with the dreadful Greens and equally ratbag Left who were responsible in the first place for that disgusting reversed onus of proof that acts to re-victimise victims and protect vicious criminals.

Removing the reversed onus/standard of proof does not allow the ordinary citizen any more leeway/options for self defence.