PDA

View Full Version : Martin Bryant and Australia's gun laws...



Teakai
10th November 2010, 06:38
It was the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in 1996 which killed 35 people and injured 21 others that was the catalyst to Australians having to turn in their guns and thereafter have vigorous control laws to be able to legally own one.

The official culprit was Martin Bryant - a strange sort of fellow who just happened to snap one day and took a gun, went to the cafe and shot people - for no particular reason other than that he was a bit soft in the head and something to do with watching the 'Chucky' movie one too many times.

But is that what really happened or was it all a set up to disarm the population in anticipation of some future event?

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/port-arthur-massacre-was-martin-bryant-framed-extracted-nexus-magazine-between-june

I'm thinking that it sounds a lot like the poor bugger was framed.

Hiram
10th November 2010, 06:59
I am very familiar with the conspiracy. It does seem a distinct possibility that he was framed. It got very strange once he was holed up in that house.

bluestflame
10th November 2010, 07:47
then is was mentioned that the previous mysterious death of his parents was being reinvestigated , sounds like they already had him , they just fitted another scenario to the score card

then the laws that took away automatic and high calibre guns

Leon
10th November 2010, 11:29
I remeber this well. why were the police on the scene armed with sig's then told not to interfere. the whole thing is fishy. and it seems now that most police around Australia are arming themshelves with new M4 carbines. spending millions of tax dollars... The Martin Bryant cenario was a setup to have an excuse to disarm. Australians seem to be easily brainwashed and believe anything on any morning show...

bluestflame
10th November 2010, 11:37
it's all the flouridated water in the aluminium beer cans

sargeist
10th November 2010, 12:18
it has always amazed me how a midly retarded young man with little-to-no shooting experience could drop moving targets with head shots, wasting not a single bullet, and ending up with a higher kill-to-wound ratio than any other firearm related mass killing ever.

what was it that one of the ballistics analysts said about highly trained and experienced special forces shooters being hard pressed to match him?

although joe vialls' investigation was possibly partialy flawed, imo he was far closer to the truth than anyone else.

Leon
10th November 2010, 12:29
From what I know, there were 3 different calibers used. one of the rifles was an ar15 which was traced back to having been handed in, in Melbourne and destroyed. There was already some sort of ban in Victoria at the time that semi-auto's could not be re-sold.
Recently I found information that there were more then one shooter... go figure...

Lord Sidious
4th June 2011, 00:30
The questions you could ask about this are:
1) How did Bryant shoot anyone when at the start, he was at a service station 90 minutes away drinking coffee with the owner?
2) How did the CAR 15 that was used get there when it was part of the victoria police ''buy back'' programme?
3) Why is there no mention outside the police's own internal documents of the various individuals that were there that day? At least three people were there.
4) Who decided to have a counter-terrorist excercise at Hobart Airport as a response to a theoretical attack at Port Arthur?

There are more, but those are a good start.

Shocking Display
5th June 2011, 13:39
It's as fishy as Tasmanian Salmon.

I didn;t know about the counter terrorist exercise at the airport.... but it seems as if 9/11 was taken from the same operations manual in this regard

Gustav
5th June 2011, 19:46
Never heard of this, read the story and don't know what to make of it yet. But governments immediately providing solutions for extreme situations is always fishy. Why does that never happen when you're taxes are raised...

Positive Vibe Merchant
6th June 2011, 05:16
The questions you could ask about this are:
1) How did Bryant shoot anyone when at the start, he was at a service station 90 minutes away drinking coffee with the owner?
2) How did the CAR 15 that was used get there when it was part of the victoria police ''buy back'' programme?
3) Why is there no mention outside the police's own internal documents of the various individuals that were there that day? At least three people were there.
4) Who decided to have a counter-terrorist excercise at Hobart Airport as a response to a theoretical attack at Port Arthur?

There are more, but those are a good start.

Save me tunning around LS...

Could you please flip to the back page and give me the answers?
I was sick on exam day :)
PVM

Lord Sidious
6th June 2011, 05:48
The questions you could ask about this are:
1) How did Bryant shoot anyone when at the start, he was at a service station 90 minutes away drinking coffee with the owner?
2) How did the CAR 15 that was used get there when it was part of the victoria police ''buy back'' programme?
3) Why is there no mention outside the police's own internal documents of the various individuals that were there that day? At least three people were there.
4) Who decided to have a counter-terrorist excercise at Hobart Airport as a response to a theoretical attack at Port Arthur?

There are more, but those are a good start.

Save me tunning around LS...

Could you please flip to the back page and give me the answers?
I was sick on exam day :)
PVM

Sorry, it doesn't work like that nugget.
No short cuts in life.

Mad Hatter
6th June 2011, 09:23
Q5) Why was there no coronial enquiry?
Q6) Why was it necessary to lock the records up for thirty years?
Q7) ...etc...etc...etc...

Trouble with trying to have this conversation in polite company is that it's about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit!! :p

Gustav
12th June 2011, 09:23
As is with most issues that question (long) standing beliefs ;)

Tigressa
12th June 2011, 12:35
Interesting! The only person I know of who came close to this case was the daughter of one of the prison psychiatrists. Apparently Martin was as close to 'evil' as her father had come across in his career. I don't know what this means, or if it is even worth repeating, but this is the only fragment I have related to this story. It is certainly very interesting about what appear to be holes in the case. I should like to know more.. Thanks for the post.