Talk:Martin Bryant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Martin Bryant is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
WikiProject Australia To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: The current Australian collaboration of the fortnight article is United States-Australia relations. Requests: Bowen Basin, Insurance in Australia, Lismore Base Hospital, Poppy Industries, Rossiter Bay, Yarmirr v Northern Territory Attention: Aboriginal Protection Act, Australian Payments Clearing Association, Coral Sea Islands, Qantas, Peter Foster, Reg Ansett Expand: Barossa Valley, Coorong, South Australia, List of Australian military memorials, Palm Island, Queensland Stubs: Australian Racing Museum Australian women's cricket team, Barry McKenzie, Calgardup Bay, Western Australia, Mortein, Prospect Creek, Russian Jack, Yabbying, Younghusband, South Australia Images: Darwin beer-can regatta, Darwin International Airport, Dingo Fence, Driza-Bone, Eucalyptus coolabah, Esky, Four'N Twenty Pie Quality watch: 33 FA-Class Australia articles - 22 GA-Class Australia articles.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 26, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Controversy 2 AfD discussion 3 A porn in a much larger game? 4 Removed text 5 Poor Quality / Missed Opportunity 6 Theories versus Facts 7 Simple version 8 Moved from article 9 Unenforcable licences? 10 Lopes Centre

[edit] Controversy

How does a retarded guy shoot 35 people with military precision? There needs to be more detail on this page about the controversy surrounding Martin Bryant, as, in my mind, this is the most important part of his life. But I'm not really that well informed. Alas.

58.169.25.66 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it with this assumption that a disabled person can't handle a gun to that extent? That's a presumptious call. If they are trained or are interested in it (or both) there is no reason why they couldn't do it. It's not rocket science. It just needs physical strength, and Bryant had that. Frankly this remark reeks of a lack of understanding of disabilities in general. Curse of Fenric 12:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Crude assumption there. And where exactly was this 'military precision' mentioned?ACK-OA Alkoholicks 12:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD discussion

Forget it. You guys don't want truth. 203.26.206.129 08:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please can you reference the Childhood section, as I believe that the entire section is patent nonsense, and creates a misleading depiction of this man. The adulthood section should also include references to his diagnosis of Schizophrenia, and to the many psychiatric reports that were conducted during his adulthood, which were required in order for him to qualify for a disability pension (you don't just get one for having a low IQ). In the Port Arthur Massacre and Aftermath section, you incorrectly state his "believed reasons" for committing the murders, when these are unreferenced, and in fact he stated very explicitly in the psychiatric report conducted after the offences that those were not reasons for him doing it. At the very least, please be consistent with the sources that you are quoting. In the Media Coverage section, you should include more information in relation to the methods that the media used to paint a picture of the man as a killer, and also to the methods that were used in changing the legal system to accommodate his crimes (his entire fortune was given to the victims), and to the media outcry in this law being applied with retrospect, as well as to many other injustices that occurred with regards to the legal process. It may also be a good idea to reference the actual statements that were made by different eye witnesses (which I can provide links to if you like) that state specifically what they said, and furthermore that the outcry did not come from eye witnesses, but from relatives of the victims. The ones who wanted Martin Bryant to die were the ones that weren't there at all, but had friends and relatives die. This should be referenced, as it is highly relevant. It should also note the synopsis of the theory from Joe Vialls, which is that the person was a trained killer or killers gone mad, and that this theory existed well before the gun law ban. The NRA's theory was a different theory that was created with reference to Joe Vialls' theory, which used the same evidence, but with a very different conclusion - that the government deliberately aimed to kill these people so as to create outcry and ban automatic weapons. This theory is very different to that of Joe Vialls, and it is the NRA's theory that was ridiculed, not Joe Vialls' one. People could believe that a government agent had gone mad and killed so many people and further that the government had wanted to hide this, but they could not believe that it was a deliberate plot and that the government wanted these people to die. It is important to differentiate the 2 theories. Oh, and as a final thing, the Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions, until November 1996, was Damian Bugg QC. From November 1996 to present, he has held the position of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. You can look this up on the DPP website. His promotion was primarily due to his work on prosecuting this case, and was stated as such when it was announced. 203.26.206.129 08:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Recording that there was an attempt to list this page on Votes for Deletion by Internodeuser and various sockpuppets. As a bogus nomimsation not made in good faith, it is not recorded here in the usual way, but it might be worth putting this note on the talk page. Tannin 11:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That was a *GENUINE* nomination, as this page is created in a terribly inaccurate fashion, Mr VANDALISM! You're vandalism was not made in good faith, but that nomination was. STILL this page remains incredibly inaccurate, with no attempts to try to make it proper. So why is it that my nominations are not as good as anyone else's? And why is it "Not in good faith" when this article is easily worth nominating for deletion? If you hadn't abused your powers and manipulated things, saying that I was a "bad user", I can bet that it would have been deleted, or at least merged. This is just ridiculous bullying behaviour by Tannin and others to try to get whatever perverse thing that they want. So can you stop now and start acting maturely for a change? 203.26.206.129 15:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

To prove that Tannin is lying, see here:

Talk:Port_Arthur_Massacre#Own_page_for_Bryant

Martin Bryant was a redirect from Port Arthur Massacre until April 2005. And so it should go back to that, in my opinion, as this one here is very sloppy.

Ergo, genuine thing. Not an "attempt". It is you, Tannin, who are using this for political gains. I am trying to fix up major blunders in this encylopaedia. 203.26.206.129 15:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A porn in a much larger game?

"There has been a book published RE: martin bryant not being alone in this massacre, there are controversial stories that he was used as a porn in a much larger game to have semi automatic weapons destroyed and disarm australia."

Did we not mean a pawn? Fruedian slip anyone? Kamajii 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

"and reportedly hired prostitutes every month to compensate for the absence of a girlfriend."

Can we find a source for this assertion? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/psycho.html

"As you read this report you will come across the words "in my opinion" which seems to compensate for any bias assumption. So I will also cover myself by saying that in my opinion Paul E. Mullen had clearly decided that Martin Bryant was guilty of the Port Arthur massacre before this report was ever presented to the court. In my opinion, it distinctly shows his prejudice against Martin Bryant..."

"Mr Bryant's first sexual encounters were with prostitutes and escorts. He apparently paid for an escort every month or so in the years prior to obtaining his inheritance." 24.132.34.209 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Quality / Missed Opportunity

I'm very dissapointed with the quality of this article, considering this was an illustration of the media really going out of control to demonise and tamper with the character of this individual. Never has a person been painted so violent nor has so much opinion, speculation and blatent defamation been poured from the presses in Australia. It is odd that no one has championed this article and the political implications the Bryant case rose.

Not to mention the fact there is still grave misgivings, especially now ten years on (even by the psychiatrist who initially examined him and established him mentally fit to undergo trial), as to whether Bryant was capable of carrying out the killings or the man behind them. There were, at the time of the crime, if my memory services me correctly, many mysterious events and occurences not to mention conspiracy theories. Perhaps if someone has the free time this could be delved into in more detail?

Jachin 10:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that he was violent, having killed more people than in any other Australian crime committed by a single person. He pleaded guilty to this and it is hardly unfair for the media to depict him as violent when Bryant himself admitted it. The conspiracy theories have been debunked several times over and are given suitable room in the article(s). They remain the opinion of a very small minority and under NPOV need to be given no more than a mention. Perhaps there is an article on these conspiracy theories where the subject may be explored at more length. --Surgeonsmate 11:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theories versus Facts

I think it's all very well to argue what is fact, what is theory and so on. It's an endless argument because the reality is there is only theory and opinion. Last I heard, Martin Bryant wasn't talking to anyone - at all. To the prison psychiatrist or even his own mother. There is one undeniable fact - NO ONE knows why he did it. I'm not even convinced if Bryant himself knew why. He knows he did it, and he showed no remorse (taking into account the possible media bias that has been mentioned) - but it has NEVER gone any further than that.

I heard a story about a year after the massacre that he may have been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome but this can not be verified otherwise I would add it to the article.

This is the problem. The lack of real facts that can be verified. We all have theories, but theories don't amount to a proper Wikipedia article. However, Bryant is definitely a person of note. His notoriety will live forever and it should certainly be recorded.

That "forever" is sloppy usage. What, precisely, do you mean? Kipholbeck 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When I join Wikipedia in October (I don't have time right now) I will be interested to see what we can find here. 61.68.133.220 11:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simple version

The simple version needs a look at. Andjam 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

58.170.197.110 says: "There has been a book published RE: martin bryant not being alone in this massacre, there are controversial stories that he was used as a porn in a much larger game to have semi automatic weapons destroyed and disarm australia." Barrylb 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unenforcable licences?

Curse of Fenric, when reverting my edit, you gave the following explanation for doing so:

rv - irrelevant information as the gun licences of Tasmania were apparently unenforceable

I would like you to not only elaborate on this "unenforcable licence" business, but also provide me with a source. Can you provide me with a source, as well as an elaboration on your claim? CeeWhy2 07:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have proof that gun laws restricting the ownership of long arms (rifles, etc.) did exist (and licenses were a part of them) in Tasmania as early as 1991, 5 years before the massacre. Here:

[1]

Re the above: "evidence" is a better word than "proof", because proof implies that there can be absolutely no doubt, which I think almost never occurs in the realm of human experience. Kipholbeck 06:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the following statement. I bolded the parts you should look at:

Tasmania had few significant gun laws prior to 1991, when it introduced gun controls for rifles and shotguns. These controls were limited, basically introducing a system of lifetime licensing of gun owners.

The fact of the matter is, any way you look at it, there were enforcable licencing laws applicable to rifles in Tasmainia prior to the Port Arthur Massacre. CeeWhy2 07:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you look at those laws properly, CeeWhy, you'll see about 100 holes in them. As you said yourself - the controls were limited. That was why they were unenforceable. That very limitation. That's why the laws were strengthened nationwide in the upshot of Port Arthur, with the government in Canberra leading the charge.

Your comment stands as irrelevant - and I stand by my reversion. Curse of Fenric 13:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm... You make a good argument. I have one last question for you before I stop reverting your edits on this page. We've both agreed on one thing: The controls were limited. However, what exactly was this limitation? Can you clearly define it? If you can't, I will continue to stand by my edit; though I acknowledge your right to stand by yours, too. I wish to avoid an edit war, however, so how about this: Have both of our viewpoints expressed in the article. One statement saying that the firearms used were technically illegal, while having another statement highlighting the possible irrelevance of licenses at the time because of lax enforcement. It would allow both of us to state important facts in the matter without having to go through this whole revert war business. CeeWhy2

The limitation is demonstrated in the fact that Bryant was able to get a gun and keep it and use it at Port Arthur. The argument you put in your edit is that he shouldn't have had the gun and should have had it taken off him - as far back as 1991 (if he had it that long). He wasn't. Now ask yourself why? Because the police didn't have the power to take it off him. That is the limitation. The law changes in 1996 as a result of Port Arthur made that possible - and it's why the farmers were up in arms over the whole thing because they were affected by this change. The clear difference between the laws prior to Port Arthur and after Port Arthur are defined well enough in the current edit. Anything else is - to quote a previous reversion by a sysop (I think) - unneccesary flourish. OK, maybe that's not the right word, but it is most certainly irrelevant. I hope that explains why not only should the page be left alone in this respect - but I would also remind you that Wikipedia expressly forbids personal opinions (or viewpoints as you put it). We'd both be in the wrong if we did what you suggested in that regard. Curse of Fenric 00:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I will no longer me making any furthur moves on this article. I just have one last thing to say in my defence before I go. You say that, had the gun laws now in effect in Australia existed back then, Martin Bryant would not have been able to obtain those firearms. Yet you ignore the fact that, even today, 85% of firearms-related crime in Australia is committed with ilegally obtained firearms. [2] If weapons can still be obtained and held illegally, then your argument is virtually null and void. Who is to say that Martin Bryant just wouldn't have gotten those rifles of his off of the black market instead of a store? CeeWhy2 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Martin Bryant never had the smarts or the savvy to get ahold of the firearms he would have wanted that way without getting himself killed. So he wouldn't have got the weapons. Curse of Fenric 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that he wasn't smart enough to do it, hm? Is that all? I believe that I have proven the relevance of the statement I placed in my edit earlier, when I first edited this article. Here is my statement again, just so you can check:

• this move is controversial, however, as Martin Bryant had no firearms licence at the time of the massacre, and had therefore been holding the weapons illegally in the first place

What has that got to do with the black market, CeeWhy? You didn't prove any relevance at all. This pretty much proves that you are seeking to inject your own opinion into the article - which is against Wikipedia rules. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that Martin Bryant dis not have a firearms licence; ergo, it is also a fact that, as a direct result of this, that he had been holding the weapons illegally at the time.

But he was able to get them easily without going to the black market before 1996!

Furthermore, it is a fact that the Howard Government's legislation has brought about controversy; hell, most gun legislation does: one need only look as far as here to know that. As far as I could tell, everything in my statement was factual.

No, it is your opinion that the move was controversial and frankly you are overstating the controversy to the extent of irrelevance. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You questioned the relevance of these facts, though. Though I disagreed with you on this, I respect your boldness and commitment to Wikipedia. It is important that there are always people who monitor what happens around here, making sure that nothing too irrelevant gets thrown around. But I digress. You questioned the relevance of my statement. You said that it was because you believed that the weapons legislation in Tasmania was flawed in such a way in that possession of a firearm license was irrelevant; at the time of the shooting, at least. When I pressed you on this statement, more specifically, how you thought the firearms licencing was insufficient, you said that, if today's weapons legislation was in place, he would not have had the ability to commit the heinous crimes for which he is now convicted. I objected to this, providing a report showing how, even with today's laws, the vast majority of firearms crimes are committed through the use of illegal weapons.

You are completely missing the point. The average man in the street (and that includes Martin Bryant) can NOT commit these acts under the current laws. Pre Bryant it was possible without going to the black market. Now one HAS to go to the black market. Hardened criminals can do that and always have because they are more comfortable doing it that way. You clearly don't understand what the 1996 legislation was designed to do judging by this commentary. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is this piece of evidence which not only defeats your initial argument, but also proves the relevance of mine. Therefore, I have come to a conclusion. I am going to edit this page again. I feel that I have proven the relevance of my initial statement to a degree which warrants this action. However, I know that you may never truly agree with me on this; as such, I have devised a compromise which may allow for both of us to agree on the matter of what is or is not relevant to this page without breaching Wikipedian policy: Instead of making my statement outright as I did before, I will instead provide a link to the Gun politics in Australia page, in the interest of providing further information about the legislation, in the following context:

• In response to the massacre, the Howard government banned semi-automatic centerfire rifles, high-capacity repeating shotguns and high-capacity rifle magazines. In addition to this, heavy limitations were also put into place on low-capacity repeating shotguns and rimfire semi-automatic rifles; this has resulted in much controversy among political observers, however (See Gun politics in Australia for more information on the 1996 legislation).

I hope that this is a satisfactory compromise, Curse of Fenric. You are a most enthusiastic Wikipedian, and I look forward to your Wikipedian work in the future. For now, however, I hope we can just agree on this article, stop arguing and get back to work on this website. Cheerio. CeeWhy2 11:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I decided not to revert (because of the link you provided which can be used in this context), but rather reword it to put the controversy level at an appropriate point. As stated earlier you are over stating it's existence (that's where your opinion interferes with fact) and I felt it was needed to calm that down with cold hard fact drawn from the very article you linked to. I didn't mention Queensland because it was irrelevant to Martin Bryant. Curse of Fenric 11:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well. CeeWhy2 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lopes Centre

Has it been confirmed that Bryant has been moved to the Lopes Centre? Andjam 00:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)