Originally posted by lilmehere
Reading about the Port Arthur Australia incident, which was *THE* catalyst for forever changing gun policies in Australia, I found that the shooter in
that incident was from New Town... anyone else find that strange?
Martin Bryant used to live next door to a friend of mine... for years.
The home he lived in in New Town (about 2 minutes' drive from my house - I live in Tasmania) belonged to an elderly 'cat lady' here... who left
everything to him when she died.
I remember the day of the massacre very clearly. April 28, 1996.
I was in the car driving home from church when I saw the first of the helicopters land on the domain (a large, open grassy area here where we have
commemorative services for veterans etc.) and transfer people to the waiting ambulance... and watched in horror on the news as the stories unfolded
throughout the day and night.
The events of that day were horrific.
...they were also a field day for conspiracy theorists.
According to the official story, Martin Bryant shot from the hip with astounding accuracy... despite never having had any official training with
firearms, and a court-assessed IQ of 66. His foray in the Broad Arrow Cafe (at Port Arthur, around 40 minutes' drive from Hobart, Tasmania's
capital city) remains to this day the very essence of gruesome killing efficiency. I'd doubt that a highly trained assassin could have done
Personally, I don't doubt that Martin Bryant was involved in these events. He was there that day, there is plenty of evidence to conclude that, and
there is also plenty of evidence to show that he possessed the required guns and ammunition. He suffered burns from the events that followed later
(he set fire to a Bed & Breakfast he was holed up in), and many of these stories are... fairly conclusively corroborated by police and onlookers to
...but I don't think there's any way that this man could have committed these acts alone. Not with that efficiency.
...either way, though, if the point of these atrocities was to 'disarm the Australian public'...
well, that's something that I would have been okay with, with or without the massacre. The statistics speak for themselves - removing certain types
of weapons from the public has only been a positive thing... and personally I think that the 'right to bear arms' really only makes sense if you
take it in its full context.
It's not about the right to bear arms. It never was. It's about the right to stand up, even if that means standing up to fight, to construct a
militia even, against injustices perpetrated by the government against the people.
...not quite the same thing as having an AK-47 under your bed.