Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Port arthur victims statements on gun control.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Port arthur victims statements on gun control.

    PORT ARTHUR VICTIMS
    ON GUN CONTROL
    Immediately after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, the media, in a frenzy, focused almost entirely on the victims. They bled dry nearly every emotional aspect of the tragedy in their relentless quest to ignore the real issues.

    It sickened us to see these vultures ruthlessly perusing ordinary people in their time of bereavement.
    Grief is a very personal emotion and one, which can only be understood by each individual in his or her own way.
    Yet the media relentlessly intruded into their suffering to take attention away from the relevant issues. While ever the media taunted the public with innuendoes about the "sins of the gun" people were reluctant to talk against the governments push to ban certain firearms.

    Disagreeing with John Howard made some people uncomfortable because, while they knew a gun was not to blame, it was not a time to think of anything except sympathy for the victims.
    However they need not have worried about many of the people who were affected by the Port Arthur massacre because they too were perplexed by Howard's push to make a bad situation even worse by removing more power from the people.
    One gun under the counter, one pistol in a holster, one armed guard on duty may well have saved dozens of lives that day yet the media propaganda deliberately ran with the stupid notion that murderers were going to hand in guns that might kill people.
    Their stupidity did not go unnoticed by those who lost the most that terrible day.
    Here are some of their comments :-

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Port Arthur Survivors
    Walter Mikac lost his entire family in a horrible tragedy. His calls for action on "gun control" have been widely publicised by a media eager to build support for the bans, photos of the grieving and distraught father leaving church are regularly reprinted. What's not often reprinted are these words.
    "It's not guns that kill people, it's people."
    No amount of gun restriction would stop "these bloody loonies" from committing mass murders.
    "The only way to stop these sort of things happening is to bring back capital punishment."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --Les Ingram, 68
    Brother of slain victim Gwen Neander 67 ,
    as reported in the Melbourne Herald Sun 11/5/96 page 3
    Article headed "Relatives want tougher (gun) laws"
    "I think everyone should have their guns to protect themselves."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- Mrs Joyce Graylard, 69, Victoria
    Mother of Victim Ms Elvar Graylard
    as reported in The Age 19/7/96 page A7
    Neville Quin refused to attend the trial unless he could bring a rifle "and give him exactly the same chance". "I could blow him away just like that," "I would not loose an ounce of sleep." he said.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- Mr Neville Quin,
    Shot through the neck after being chased onto a bus.
    Wife was killed in the car park at Port Arthur.
    Mother had a heart attack after hearing the news.
    as reported in Who Weekly, May 5 1997 No. 271
    "Restriction on guns of that nature may do some good but with violent people you never know...if they're that way inclined, I think they will still find a way."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- Wally Nash,
    Father of Peter Nash, killed while shielding his wife
    as reported in the Melbourne Herald Sun 11/5/96 page 3
    Article headed "Relatives want tougher (gun) laws"
    "I still like my gun. I do not want to loose my automatic shotgun."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- Mr Neville Quin, 52, Bicheno, Tasmania
    as reported in The Age 19/7/96 page A7
    "This business about gun control is a joke really. I come from Switzerland where everyone is taught how to treat weapons sensibly and with care. In Switzerland everyone keeps a gun in their own home and we don't have any problems with them."

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- Mrs Emma Jay, 70, Northern NSW
    Friend of Port Arthur victim Jim Pollard
    as reported in The Age 19/7/96 page A7
    Mr. Frank Gaylard, brother of Port Arthur victim Elva Gaylard, called on the Tasmanian and Federal Governments to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the tragedy. Mr. Gaylard is the second relative of a Port Arthur victim to call for an inquiry into the circumstances of Port Arthur. As a result of his dissatisfaction with the Government response to Port Arthur he has become an active member of the Shepparton Branch of the Australian Reform Party. As the President of that branch he will work to ensure that governments do not keep secrets from their citizens, including the secrets of Martin Bryant, and Port Arthur.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- Wendy Scurr, PO Box 8, Kempton ,Tas 7030 who was at Port Arthur during the incident and has more first hand knowledge of the carnage than most other people. She was the first person on the scene at the Broad Arrow Cafe and administered first aid and comfort to victims. She was the first person to phone disbelieving police while Port Arthur was still under fire. She is currently touring Australia fighting for compensation for victims who were discarded by the government and the press as soon as the Gun Buy Back scheme was passed in Parliament. Her emotional speech on the slaughter that she witnessed has no hatred for guns or gun owners. Instead she focused on the real issues such as, complacency, slack security and suspicion of a conspiracy unprecedented in this country. A conspiracy which took advantage of our inability to protect ourselves thanks to our draconian gun laws.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "One hell of a cover up"
    Posted on PUBLIC DEBATE: November 29, 1999
    By: Wendy Scurr
    "I have read Joe Vialls book, I was heavily involved in the Massacre itself, I was working at Port Arthur. I know that what Mr Vialls is stating is true and that the official version is one hell of a cover up. The video footage is one issue, the time factor is another, why did it take police 6hrs to arrive except for one policeman at 4.30pm and two female officers at 5.30pm to control over 500 people and 5 major crime scenes. There many other issues to be considered. But it is one huge coverup."

    When Wndy and her husband finally returned to their home after the massacre the first thing she said as she walked through the door was "you're going to have to teach me how to use the rifle". She felt vulnerable for the first time in her life and only the ability to be able to shoot back would make this woman feel safe again.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348

    Thumbs up

    Thanks for the post
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  3. #3
    Regular Member tcmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    368
    I was at Port Arthur several years ago and spoke with the bus driver who described the man being shot on his bus. I know that many of us in the US have seen similar tragedy's in our own media. But most of us have never been to a sight where they have happened and spoken with any of the survivors.

    Port Arthur is an extremely small community, everyone there was affected by the events that day. No one who lived there did not lose a neighbor, friend, relative, or loved one. I do not know how anyone who could look at that small peaceful setting, knowing what had happened there, and not see a need to carry a means to protect their own loved ones from such a tragedy.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by tcmech View Post
    I was at Port Arthur several years ago and spoke with the bus driver who described the man being shot on his bus. I know that many of us in the US have seen similar tragedy's in our own media. But most of us have never been to a sight where they have happened and spoken with any of the survivors.

    Port Arthur is an extremely small community, everyone there was affected by the events that day. No one who lived there did not lose a neighbor, friend, relative, or loved one. I do not know how anyone who could look at that small peaceful setting, knowing what had happened there, and not see a need to carry a means to protect their own loved ones from such a tragedy.
    Hi 'tcmech'

    It was a sad day that may have been avoided if some of the people were armed and able to fire back, not to mention the fact that the government at the time was keen ban firearms from the general population. It was stated in parliment by an M.P. before the Port Arthur shooting, "What do we need happen for us to finally make laws to get rid of guns in Australia, a massacre it Tasmania?"

    Dare I say it, many down under believe Martin Bryant was a set-up patsy?

    I have read statements made by professionals wh state that M.b could never in a million years have killed so many people with so few shots fired in suck quick time?

    For example;

    HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT PORT ARTHUR
    * Copyright Joe Vialls - April 2001 - All Rights Reserved, 45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia 6062


    Since the blatant but failed attempt on Martin Bryant�s life in December 2000, the mainstream media and other interest groups have gone into overdrive, attempting to deflect public attention away from the core scientific evidence that proves his innocence. The methods vary but the objective appears to remain the same: use unacceptable hearsay testimony and inaccurate guesswork to overwhelm the existing hard scientific evidence, thereby denying Martin Bryant the trial he has not yet been allowed.


    As any competent police detective will confirm, hearsay evidence and guesswork are instant death to any serious inquiry, leading investigators and readers into numerous blind alleys from which there is little chance of escape. For example, suggesting the mass murder was "probably" planned to take place on the Isle of the Dead near Port Arthur, or on board a ferry on its way to the Isle of the Dead, deflects away from the reality that the principal crime scene was the Broad Arrow Caf�. At the same time this approach indirectly implies a specific form of advance planning that can never be proved in scientific terms. Great material for a "whodunit" crime novel perhaps, but useless and confusing within the confines of a serious mass murder investigation.

    Attempts have also been made to "stretch" the time the shooter actually fired inside the Broad Arrow Caf�, and the total number of rounds expended. This is a far more damaging claim, leading as it does to the inevitable image of a slower clumsy shooter, one that might more easily be compared with random killers like Kip Kinkel in Springfield, or Michael McDermott in Wakefield.

    Though known to be a proficient shooter, Michael McDermott used a total of seventy-seven rounds to kill just seven of his work mates trapped in their office at Edgewater Technology. As with Kip Kinkel in the school canteen in Springfield, most of McDermott�s rounds missed their targets completely, resulting in bullet and fragment holes all over the room. Not one of McDermott�s seven victims was hit in the head or upper neck, unlike the first nineteen victims in the Broad Arrow Caf� during April 1996. Each of the latter was coldly dispatched with an expert single shot to the head,

    After the bodies at Springfield and Wakefield were removed, both crime scenes bore all the hallmarks of a major military engagement: ejected cartridge cases by the score, and dozens of expended whole bullets and fragments that missed their targets buried in the walls, ceiling and furniture. Springfield and Wakefield were forensic gold mines, littered with enough exhibits to keep the crime labs busy for months.

    This was certainly not the case in the Broad Arrow Caf� at Port Arthur. As the official forensic diagram compiled by the New South Wales Police scientific team shows in great detail (see picture), there were only 29 ejected cartridge cases, and a total of seven bullet fragments. We know that all 29 bullets hit their intended targets because we have the post mortem results for the victims, and we also know that fragments from three of those same bullets injured a further three victims, resulting in 32 dead or injured for only 29 shots fired.


    "POSITION OF CARTRIDGE CASES"





    CLICK HERE FOR FULL SIZED MAP
    The forensic diagram also shows limited damage to the floor and furniture, but it must be remembered this damage does not include any residual bullets, bullet fragments or bone chippings. So far as the investigation is concerned, the damage serves only to illustrate the likely course or direction of travel of a bullet, or bullet fragment, or bone chipping, and cannot be meaningfully "added" to the seven existing bullet fragments in order to provide a more dramatic expanded total.

    The fragments require further explanation. Due to the unusual mass and velocity combination of the 5.56-mm NATO (.223 Remington) round at close range, bullets do not stay intact when striking hard targets, as they would normally do in the case of the old .303 Lee Enfield round of World War 2 fame. On contact with the hard bone of a human skull for example, the old 150 grain .303 bullet would create an entry wound, then use its mass [weight] and resulting inertia to continue through the skull and punch a larger exit wound through the rear.

    Though the .223 Remington round used at Port Arthur has the same overall kinetic energy as a .303 Lee Enfield at the point of impact, it lacks the mass and inertia needed to continue through hard bone because it only weighs 55 grains. The massive kinetic energy expended at the point of impact with hard bone, causes the little.223 Remington bullet to fragment, in turn frequently causing the skull to explode due to a sudden increase in internal hydrostatic pressure. The result? Bullet fragments and bone chips continuing on from the primary target to injure further victims.

    This ugly characteristic of the .223 Remington round at close range, has been proved on hundreds of occasions during the last three months in Palestine. Children hit in the shin or knee by identical rounds fired by Israeli soldiers and settlers, invariably have their legs amputated, because the shattered mess of bullet fragments muddled up with hundreds of bone chips, makes effective remedial surgery impossible.

    Where Port Arthur is concerned, remember that unlike the Hoddle Street and other open-air murders, the mass murder in the Broad Arrow Caf� took place within a completely confined space, thereby restricting residual evidence to the same confined area. To prove this mass murder was the same as (or even vaguely similar to) the random events at Springfield and Wakefield, would require at least two dozen bullet holes and associated 100 � 150 bullet fragments to validate the comparison.

    There were none of these items, and because the mere seven fragments found in the Broad Arrow most probably originated from the same three frag through-shots that injured victims 30-32, the crime scene was almost spookily clean. This, shrieked the lack of evidence, was the work of a man who never missed his targets. It may have been this very lack of visible evidence that led to the Tasmanian Government order for the premature destruction of the internal structure of the Broad Arrow Caf�. Not to "hide evidence" as some have speculated, but rather to hide the more damning total lack of evidence or artifacts: evidence and artifacts that would later be required in court to validate the "lone nut" and thus "random" shooting.

    Anyone trying to subtly deflect away from the harsh reality of the expert shooter in the Broad Arrow, might imply that the thorough official forensic diagram was later "altered" or "forged" to fit the evidence submitted in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. This is not only an insult to the entire New South Wales Police scientific team, it is also hopelessly irrational. Any attempt at forgery down the line would be aimed at significantly increasing the "evidence" in order to enhance the illusion of a "lone nut" random event. The New South Wales Police scientific team did not forge, alter, or delete anything. By generously placing its official forensic diagram in the public domain, the scientific team has provided you the reader with the official means to prove the Tasmanian Government�s story of the day was, and remains, an impossible lie.

    The alleged extended "total shooting time" in the Broad Arrow Caf� is easy to rebut. The audio tracks of two amateur video cameras filming at the time of the shooting accurately recorded the incredible speed of the shots, and were later submitted to the Supreme Court of Tasmania as evidence. The author has copies of these videos, both of which were subjected to extensive testing by audio experts using sophisticated computer audio analytical programs. There is not the slightest trace of forgery or editing breaks on either tape, both of which prove the astonishing rate of fire of the expert combat shooter. at Port Arthur. There is not an amateur shooter in the land who could get even close.

    Alternative views on Port Arthur are encouraged, because it is the democratic right of every individual to speak his or her mind on any subject. In this context it matters not whether the speaker is a New South Wales farmer, a Victorian security guard, or a Port Arthur survivor obliged to ride the harsh and emotional roller coaster of extended psychiatric hypnosis in Melbourne, Victoria, at Tasmanian Government expense. No matter who might decide to take the stand, he or she is entitled and encouraged to speak independently on the matter.

    The down side is that those who care about Australia and Australian national security should be very careful with their selection of words, especially at this late stage with the Federal and Tasmanian Governments known to be severely shaken by the reality that their best efforts have failed to quash the Port Arthur "conspiracy". In some cases the public might be tempted to question the underlying motives of those who seek to mislead their audiences, and subtly deflect away from the known hard scientific facts.

    Remember. Collectively as Australians we allowed government to imprison an intellectually impaired young man for a series of crimes he could not possibly have committed. At the time we all stood by meekly and allowed this to happen while raising not the slightest objection to Bryant�s severe abuse while on remand in Risdon Prison, nor to the fact that he should have been provided with a qualified guardian to protect him from his own lawyers. It is time to forget personal ego trips and "control" of the Port Arthur story. Martin Bryant needs a trial and he needs it now, before someone somewhere has time to arrange another "accident" in his lonely cell.
    _______________________________________

    There was a cry for a Royal Comission enquirey into the Port Arthur shooting, but it was knocked back by the government as being too costly. Yet the government instituted a Royal Comission enquirey into the accidental death of four sailors in the West Australia ship fire?
    Last edited by Haz.; 10-19-2010 at 12:04 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Touchy feely subject ay? Another; Remember the Rainbow Warriour sinking in N Z when the french were blasting the Atols in the pacific near Aus and NZ?

    Well the boat was sunk by an explosion, someone on board died, France denied any involvement and later admitted doing it??? Hmmm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •