I don't mean to be rude but you clearly have the legal understanding of a penguin after 6 gin and tonics, New Zealand or otherwise. You also clearly don't understand the Kawakawa case you likely reference.That gun culture is very different between the USA and NZ is both true but also broadly irrelevant. Self defense law in both is far more similar than different, both devolved from the same statutory source. If you attack me in NZ and I defend myself with a gun, self-defense is wholly legitimate as a potential defence in court. I may own or possess the weapon illegally and may be separately charged for same, given its much harder to obtain firearms in NZ than the USA, and given laws on firearms generally are stricter, but that does not invalidate the doctrine of legal self-defense.However, my right to defend myself is not invalidated by such. If I am otherwise behaving legally and can show I *acted reasonably in the purpose of defending myself, sincerely believing your intent to cause me serious or fatal harm*, there is no legal function with NZ law that would prevent my acquittal on grounds of self-defense, if I were actually even charged. Your farmer story only confirms the same. It's a viable defense. Indeed, the judge in that case instructed the jury to find not guilty *before* the trial began, which they did after short deliberation, based upon the facts. A secondary gun charge was also dismissed. Who's *making stuff up* about NZ here?These types of cases may certainly be far *rarer* in NZ, certainly, but that's a wholly different discussion. You may want to re-read the early posts to remember what we were actually discussing. That NZ is different to the USA isn't an argument.That it's harder to own a gun doesn't change other legal principles. That's a wholly fallacious argument. I've lived in other counties with similarly strict laws on gun ownership to NZ (the UK being a good example) and the same legal concepts hold true there too.I hope you've learned something now about your country, and will stop saying a load of incorrect 'facts'.