"what would you have done"

Well the first thing is to realise and accept the status of lower life and easy dispensability of the law-abiding citizen.

It is different for violent home-invading ferals and organised crime who will always enjoy full protection of their rights.

It is different for politicians. We see a large fence being built to protect federal politicians. Costs $126 million! There will be $add-ons. They have armed police in close proximity and first priority if more are needed, army SAS too!
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/act/2017/09/18/construction-begins-on-parliament-house-fence.html

What the political elite and police expected that farmer, husband and father, to do was to allow the feral to take advantage of the wife and kids, assault and kill at will and force the farmer to allow access to his safe.

Most people reading this sad story in the media will be surprised by the Catch 22, but will never imagine they and their loved ones could very easily be in a similar situation one day soon. Maybe they might not have an empty pea-rifle firearm prop to be scolded later by police for deterring the feral and holding him for police arrest, doing their job for them.

BUT they should know that the very first priority of the police is to interrogate anyone who defends him- herself and that interrogation will involve very long interrogation and holding in a cell and NO, that 'friendly' policewoman or policeman isn't expressing support and kindness to you, s/he is trying to find some evidence to support a charge. Then it is a minimum of $30k to defend yourself again in court and no, you don't get anything back for innocent.

Be aware too, that in most jurisdictions, Qld for instance, there is the foul REVERSED onus of proof where you the victim are concerned. It is YOU who have to prove that you were in fear of your life and that every single action was reasonable. Hard to do before a court where all manner of options magically appear and are held to be ways you might have survived intact or with your life.

Actually, it's not new. Many years ago my neighbour caught a kid pinching the milk money off my doorstep; he chased the thief, apprended her, and called the police, who did turn up only to harangue my neighbour for grabbing the thief - and he was a Customs officer.

Australian politicians slavishly follow the UK for an easy life. What about this?

"Myleene Klass warned by police after waving 'illegal' kitchen knife at intruders in her garden

Myleene Klass was told off by police for waving a knife through her window to scare off two teenagers trying to break into her garden shed.

The musician was alone in her kitchen, with her two-year-old daughter asleep upstairs, when she grabbed the knife and shouted 'I'm calling the police'.

Officers who arrived at her house in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, on Friday warned her that it was illegal to carry an 'offensive weapon' even at home..."

[worth reading in full]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242040/Myleene-Klass-warned-police-waving-illegal-kitchen-knife-intruders-garden.html

Police officers are law enforcement officers.
In other words they are there to enforce the law.
They deal with things like stealing, assault, burglary,
damage, and weapons - according to the law.

If we want them to change their behaviour on any of
these aspects - then we need to change the law
that affect these crimes. Otherwise nothing is going
to change.

A police officer simply goes by the law.And that is what
they did in the case of David Dunstan.

Of course father of three David Dunstan behaved sensibly
and rationally and should be congratulated on the way
he dealt with - what must have been a stressful situation
for him and his family. His gun was not loaded - he used
it as a prop. He could see that the 18 year old teen appeared
to be drug affected (why else would he knock on the front
door) and the gun was used to scare the armed teen into
compliance. Nobody was hurt or killed. Driving the teen to
the police station was a job well handled.

Hopefully Mr Dunstan will get his guns back soon. But for
things to change - the law needs to be reviewed.
Definitely. Otherwise nothing will change.

I think most people who faced an armed person attempting to enter their house would use whatever means available to them to dissuade the intruder from being a risk to their family. I have no problems with that at all. Neither do I have an issue with the police removing the weapons until the case is fully investigated. I think that is appropriate, as is a license review, and if all is in order the man will undoubtedly get his weapons back.

There are some questions which need answering though. For instance why did the man feel the need to force the intruder into the car to drive him to the police station at gunpoint if the police were on their way? Hopefully the police will do their job and apply the law.

What we are going to be subjected to as a result of this story are the gun nuts wanting to arm every household. Oh joy.

In fact the police have discretion where firearms licensed members of the public are concerned. Someone up the line ACTED, not reacted, it was a decision, to take that particular course and his property.

It is not clear from what I read if his licence had been seized as well, but that would have been in tune with the harsh treatment.

His licence and his assets are 'under review'. That means it up to him to prove he should have his licence and assets back, to overturn the confiscation.

That will cost him time out of his lawful activities that support him and his family, ie farming PLUS anywhere from $30k up to be represented in Court. Money that will NOT be reimbursed, even if he wins. Police and prosecutors have unlimited funds and everything can be a test case, speculative, to gain interpretations and more powers if they like.

BTW he has had all of his firearms taken and that would include any other property the police could imagine is associated. By comparison, even where a person commits a serious offence with a car for example, his/her other cars and property are not automatically taken as well.

That is enough to suggest gross unfairness for now.

It is most ill-advised to approach an offender with an unloaded firearm. But I guess most would no other alternative where time is critical, because by regulation ammunition is separately stored and also under lock and key. Then there are other considerations. Government makes it impossible for the law-abiding, especially the aged, frail and women, to defend themselves with a firearm. But the offenders have no such problem and they have the initiative too.

I believe this offender is an adult by law and allegedly had already committed a similar offence elsewhere. What other offences is not known at this stage.

The question remains, "what would you have done?".