Australian's false flag anti gun massacre - 20 years ago

a reply to: Navarro

Except it wasn't twenty headshots back to back.

I, too, would react to gunfire. Then again I'm intimately familiar with what gunfire sounds like. People who aren't familiar with it don't always immediately recognize it for what it is. Which is why at least one table of people thought it was fireworks.

Some people fight. Some people flee. Some people do neither. Expecting an entire room full of ordinary people to react how you think you would react is illogical and ignores basic human nature.

Thinking that somebody would "get drafted" because he managed to shoot some people in the head who were sitting down and within a matter of paces from him is just as illogical and rhetorical as the other notion.

a reply to: Azureblue

Sounds familiar.

The Australian Lanza.

Physically and mentally feeble.

Uncannily efficient at killing en mass.

No trial necessary.

Pretty slick.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Navarro

Except it wasn't twenty headshots back to back.

I, too, would react to gunfire. Then again I'm intimately familiar with what gunfire sounds like. People who aren't familiar with it don't always immediately recognize it for what it is. Which is why at least one table of people thought it was fireworks.

Some people fight. Some people flee. Some people do neither. Expecting an entire room full of ordinary people to react how you think you would react is illogical and ignores basic human nature.

Thinking that somebody would "get drafted" because he managed to shoot some people in the head who were sitting down and within a matter of paces from him is just as illogical and rhetorical as the other notion.

According to the OP, he didn't "managed to shoot some people in the head," he managed to shoot 20 people, all of whom were struck in the head or neck. Furthermore, he achieved twenty neck/head shots with only nineteen rounds fired. Maybe the first few calmly sat for him, but certainly not the majority. The majority must have been mobile, and yet he still achieved 100% accuracy, all neck/head shots, with one double kill. All those panicking people running back and forth and he never missed his target once? Never even accidentally struck someone in the torso? All while firing from the hip?

19 rounds fired, 20 neck/head shots, with the majority of his targets being mobile, frantically fleeing him, without ever looking down his sights? C'mon.

a reply to: paraphi
The wikipedia entry says that at the cafe he "took aim from his hip", which means he wasn't actually aiming it, but rather holding the rifle in his hands and 'guessing' where the projectiles will hit. It also says it happened in 15-30 seconds. He managed to create 22 casualties in a few seconds with (likely) 30 rounds, most of the dead shot in the head, without using the sights to aim. Without meaning to sound apathetic, that is impressive...

It also claims he took inspiration from the Dunblane shooting mere weeks before, wherein a pedophile killed many people, which resulted in gun control as well. These notions in and of themselves prove nothing conspiratorial, but at the very least, governments took advantage of them.

a reply to: Azureblue

www.nexusmagazine.com and download a 3 part series first published in Nexus Magazine 2006.

coercive interrogation, induced/implanted memories; all teh good stuff

"The Port Arthur Massacre - was Martin Bryant Framed - by Carl Wernerhoff"

I'll let the good ATS readers draw their own conclusions - suffice to say Gun buy back legislation followed in the same year 1996.

en.wikipedia.org...

Prime Minister John Howard took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[17] and convinced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws.

a reply to: harold223

Common practice in Australia in the past and Tasmania tends to be a bit behind the times

Are you Australian, because if you are you would be only partially right. How far in the past are you talking about?

a reply to: paraphi

This transcript details witness testimony that Bryant was killing people. If the witnesses are lying (etc) then it's one massively complex conspiracy that has stood the test of time!

Nobody needs to be lying if there was a 2nd shooter ensuring casualties. After the mayhem people miss the nuances.

As far as I'm concerned if they can perfect a 911 Twin Towers collapse - a Port Arthur operation is like a walk in the park.

have you seen how many shots Cops fire and most miss!
its like star wars, storm troopers shooting!
and if its that easy,
why do special forces spend so many years training?

a reply to: Navarro

You should probably do some research on the cafe. It was described as being a) crowded and b) small.

Considering the gunman started shooting at the people literally right next to him and his "aim" became drastically worse as he began engaging targets that were moving, I remain unimpressed with his "ability."

Holding a gun at hip height means the barrel is at head height to somebody who's seated. Ergo, were one to start shooting, one would be shooting at head height for somebody who is seated. The majority of his victims were in fact not mobile. The first several were all seated at tables or standing at tables.

He struck at least two victims in the torso. And then shot then again in the head as they lay on the ground. One of the victims that was fleeing was shot in the arm first, then the head.

Not that I expect any of that to matter. You're pinning your argument on the fallacy that most of the victims were mobile. They weren't.

originally posted by: SargonThrall
(Wikipedia) He managed to create 22 casualties in a few seconds with (likely) 30 rounds, most of the dead shot in the head, without using the sights to aim. Without meaning to sound apathetic, that is impressive...

Unlike some, I admit to NOT being an expert in assault rifles and shooting from the hip at very close range.

However, from the Court transcript, that I referenced earlier, and that can be found at the bottom of page 1.

In the cafe, the narrative is quite graphic and shocking I, but urge you to read the evidence and then make a judgements rather than rely on Wikipedia. However, this is a snip...

That shot which struck Mr. Bennett in the neck in the right side left an exit wound on the left and medical and ballistic evidence indicates that on exiting that bullet then struck Mr. Ray Sharpe, also killing him.

On shooting from the hip...

When he reached the passenger side front door Bryant calmly and deliberately raised the rifle to his hip and fired three shots in rapid succession, smashing through the window into Miss Hall. She received an injury to her neck, an injury which passed through her left forearm through her chest and into the right arm, and a wound through her back. The first two of these wounds were lethal injuries and according to the pathologist the third was most probably so.

a reply to: paraphi

If you're thoroughly familiar with a particular rifle you can shoot quickly and fairly accurately at short range from the hip. But it takes thousands of shots with that particular gun to achieve that degree of familiarity. You have to feel the gun as a natural extension of your body. You can't swap the skill over to another type of gun, you have to go through thousands of shots again to gain the same familiarity.

Here at 2:22 we see a shot from the hip at very close range with the target moving directly towards him, and this is described as "incredible".

a reply to: Kester

It takes thousands of rounds of practice to hit stationary targets just outside of arms reach?

Strange.

a reply to: Kester

shame the beautiful lion didnt kill at least ONE of those small minded pricks!

originally posted by: Navarro
According to the OP, he didn't "managed to shoot some people in the head," he managed to shoot 20 people, all of whom were struck in the head or neck. Furthermore, he achieved twenty neck/head shots with only nineteen rounds fired.

But as I pointed out, that is not a fact, just something made up!

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I'm sorry the mechanics of close range shooting in a crowded room with a high powered weapon are so incomprehensible to you. I can't really dumb it down any more than it already has been.

Good one ...Its more about the fact that you gun nuts go on and on about how it takes time to be proficient with a weapon and that is generally the reason given when we ask why did that cop shoot 20 bullets and only hit the target once......Your right i know little about high powered rifles but if you say that it really easy for anyone to use one and kill as many people as he did with so few bullets fired it must just be that easy.....

heres a thought.. the witnesses were bought off by the anti gun lobby.

Yes I am Australian. 1950's and 60's. My dad used to do it here in Adelaide. Used to shoot rabbits with a 22 in scrub that is now the West Lakes housing estate and sell them to neighbours for pocket money..

**edit**

I hear about Martin Bryant shooting rabbits on a documentary that was on Australian television about him recently for what its worth as a source ;-)

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

originally posted by: Navarro

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Navarro

Except it wasn't twenty headshots back to back.

I, too, would react to gunfire. Then again I'm intimately familiar with what gunfire sounds like. People who aren't familiar with it don't always immediately recognize it for what it is. Which is why at least one table of people thought it was fireworks.

Some people fight. Some people flee. Some people do neither. Expecting an entire room full of ordinary people to react how you think you would react is illogical and ignores basic human nature.

Thinking that somebody would "get drafted" because he managed to shoot some people in the head who were sitting down and within a matter of paces from him is just as illogical and rhetorical as the other notion.

According to the OP, he didn't "managed to shoot some people in the head," he managed to shoot 20 people, all of whom were struck in the head or neck. Furthermore, he achieved twenty neck/head shots with only nineteen rounds fired. Maybe the first few calmly sat for him, but certainly not the majority. The majority must have been mobile, and yet he still achieved 100% accuracy, all neck/head shots, with one double kill. All those panicking people running back and forth and he never missed his target once? Never even accidentally struck someone in the torso? All while firing from the hip?

19 rounds fired, 20 neck/head shots, with the majority of his targets being mobile, frantically fleeing him, without ever looking down his sights? C'mon.

Yes it is incredible, especially for a 13 year old kid whose sum total of expereince with guns was to buy and take two semi automatic guns out into the bush with his female friend and fired each gun at bottles or cans twice. Then put them back in the car and drove back to the Hobart gun shop because the noise and the recoil of the gun frightened him.

Even more evidence the bloke cannot have done it.
Bryant was legally incompetent to make a legal decision therefore he was not legally capable of making a plea of any sort. Every lawyer in the land knows the court can only enter a not guilty plea in such cases. This is because of the assumption of innocence until proven guilty in the British justice system. Ever lawyer in the land knows this. Every 2nd year law student in the land known so why did the Director of Public Prosecutions, his entire legal support staff and his so called legal representatives not say a single word during this entire sham. The only reasonable and credible explanation is that they all must have been part of the conspiracy.

It is with great reluctance, that I comment on this incident.

It was and is a tragedy of huge importance, particularly to those deceased and their many, many family members and friends.

For people to imagine "Conspiracy" theories and doubts of Martin Bryant guilt, is nothing but an insult to the people who were murdered, through no fault of their own, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is EXTREMELY easy to understand how a young guy, proficient with his weapon, could murder, mostly old people, tourist on holiday and in holiday mode, in such a short time.

For the benefit of the people who haven't been to Port Arthur as a tourist,...... it is a Very Solemn Place....For well over 100 years before this terrible incident.

Port Arthur is a static memorial to the horrible ways humans treat other humans....it was a Penitentiary for mostly petty poor people, who were shipped to the other side of the World, without their consent, to be exiled for life, and to be overseen by soldiers who probably also didnt want to be there, but did as His Majesty instructs.

100s of people died and were executed at Port Arthur. It is a place of horror and sadness.

I visited there in the late 1980s and I tell you it is a very forebobing place, creepy infact.
It was dead still, not a bird could be heard...and this was on a nice day.
It is Not a Happy Tourist site of people laughing and running around, with roller coasters and jumpy castles.......it is a memorial to death and sadness.

Much like the Japanese bomb sites, it is there as a reminder to Man's injustice to Man.

Now..........Put this scene into perspective and you get a better idea of why things happened, so easily, for the killer.

Most of the tourists in the cafe were either out of state, or international tourists.
Most of the people were older and retired.
Most people have never used an automatic weapon, let alone heard one in real life....Note: they do not sound like TV.

Bryant went into the cafe and sat down, he was another person, just a guest with a bag, people ignored him, as you do.
But he opened his bag, got his "Sweet little gun" out as he later called it in the police interview (his favourite), and started shooting....people were caught unprepared, your instant reaction is NOT to jump on the ground, its to look around and see whats going on......by that time it was too late.

The linked video is the Police video after the incident.....I will make a warning now..It is VERY GRAPHIC and it is suitable for over 18 year olds only please....

That is all I can say about that.
www.liveleak.com...

Anyway, the first full year after the gun ban, gun crime rose by 40%, and guns had been banned?