5 guns that every sporting shooter (supposedly) needs

[TerryO]

Came across this YouTube video by accident, while I have always enjoyed shooting and used to go hunting when I was much younger for the life of me I can't understand why these blokes reckon these five 'guns' (as they put it even though at least one of them is a rifle) are a good idea for sporting shooters to own.

After watching it to be frank I don't know what sport they are supposedly talking about.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OYjbSGO30K0

[gossamer]

everyone needs a 12 guage shotgun that shoots 15 rounds in 3 sec and a Barrett 50 cal for when the zombies are coming

[Slunnie]

everyone needs a 12 guage shotgun that shoots 15 rounds in 3 sec and a Barrett 50 cal for when the zombies are coming
Bit of zombie rat-shot in the 50cal.:D

[Seriestwo]

I am unsure as to why a 50cal would be needed for hunting but I am more surprised anyone can purchase one from a gun shop. But then I wonder how many people have been robbed and shot by a person using a 50cal... probably not many.

Chris

[S3ute]

Hello from Brisbane.

Watching the video it didn't occur to me that those two savants were really talking about necessary hunting tools at all.

The central thesis of the clip from my viewing was "what 5 guns might you like to get a hold of that the guv'mnt might prefer you didn't" and/or "what 5 guns are the pinko media most likely to track down when wanting to highlight what the looney gun freaks are hiding in the back of the cupboard".

The final choice seems to have worked, based on the response to the thread along the lines of "what the hell do you need those for"?

Having been to one or two American gun shops, especially in the South and Southwest for a bit of low entertainment I found myself asking the same question.

Cheers,

[TerryO]

All through the clip the two blokes kept saying these five guns are just sporting shooters guns, nothing special etc. so they didn't know what all the fuss was about. As I said I'm not really sure what sport they are actually talking about.

There were some pearls of wisdom though that no one can argue with, when they said those five guns were no more deadly then any other gun, which is true. One well placed .22 slug can kill you just as dead as a .50 cal from 2,000 metres away or a 15 shoot 12 gauge after the shooter has pulled the trigger for just three seconds and emptied all 15 shots into you, or what's more the case what's left of you.

At the end of the clip it also had in writing something like these are five guns to buy before the government outlaws them, kind of speaks for itself in my opinion.

[gossamer]

and the top 5 for home defence ???
the pistol that takes 4.10 shells is interesting though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfpMEin8D4c

[gossamer]

after learning which is the best gun to buy now watch how to use them ?????
(some language)

*Video deleted because of language.

[TerryO]

Especially giving a hand gun to a 2 year old at a party, I guess that is what you call rough justice.

Unfortunately the video Gossamer put up had inappropriate language in it so it can't be shown on the forum so it has been deleted, but its easy to find if you look at the other related videos available on YouTube.

I think its called 'Idiots with guns'

[phibbzy]

I am confused to start with, the post is around one thing and the video is about something completely different. The irony being that the video is about misconceptions around firearms and your post is about how a commonly used type of firearm could not possibly have any use... lol:D:D

Sporting rifle means a whole different thing in a country where firearms arn't cloaked in villainous intent, blood, murder & chaos.

Essentially, the term sporting rifle was created to ACCURATELY describe the type of firearms commonly used by civilians in a sporting pursuit. This was done essentially to combat the media's use of the term "Assault rifle" and to give an accurate name to a specific design of the common gas operated semi automatic rifle.

To put it simply:
THIS RIFLE
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/09/350.jpg
AND THIS RIFLE
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/09/351.jpg

ARE IDENTICAL. They are both .223 Remington caliber, gas operated semi automatic rifles with 16.5" barrels and standard capacity magazines. They are IDENTICAL in fit, form and function. Only the design of operation differs.

Both are rifles however one is a sporting rifle and one is a ranch rifle.

I can tell you from experience that one rifle is as effective at the purpose it is employed for as the other.

Perhaps the term has confused you into considering that for a sporting rifle of the type we have in Australia that these would be bad choices however a great deal of hunters and competitive shooters would have a semi automatic or FIVE in their safes if they were permitted for such a use.

These guns look scary because everyone's seen Rambo and movies with people jumping from 10 floors up nailing 5 guys on the way down with one.

Sporting rifles are not & never were a problem in America.

In America between 2008-2011 from FBI data only 323 to 380 deaths could be attributed to RIFLES - including bolt action, lever, pump & semi-auto. This also includes SUICIDES & police action.

The same years saw between 8500 & 9500 people die to HAND GUNS. The disparity has been linked through various studies to be demographically & geographically linked to gangs & organized crime.

Note also that during the 1994-2004 Federal Weapons Ban in the united states, deaths from the type of firearms prohibited by the ban dropped ONE WHOLE PERCENT. It then continued to drop after the ban lifted.

The main reason there will not be another weapons ban is that IT DID NOTHING BEFORE, so why do it again?

Hand guns are only slightly more regulated than long arms in Australia.

The way you wrap the firearm, be it with plastic or wood with pistol grips and fancy bolt ons plays no effect to the operation of the rifle.

In regards to a .50cal rifle - you can own and shoot them in Australia on the same permit that allows you to own a .223 bolt action rifle or a .303 SMLE.

I find it remarkable that all throughout modern history the global map has been dominated by authoritarian governments, foreign invasions & annexations yet the concept that a specific country freed by a war for independence and founded on freedom & liberty gives its people the right to protect themselves against that is seen as talk of a mad man.

The authorities in America are literally driving tanks down the streets to curb protests, shooting anyone that twitches the wrong way, using SWAT teams to arrest sleeping people for dope (and not finding any or getting the address on the no-knock warrant WRONG), spying on the population en mass & generally doing their hardest not to give 2 ****s about what the population wants or needs.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for Licensing & safe storage but there is just genuinely no reason to prohibit a firearm on its looks or operation and if you want to dress a common rifle type up to fit a specific purpose you have weather it be busting bunnies or slapping steel it makes no bloody difference in reality.

[TerryO]

I thought it was reasonably obvious that I was being some what sarcastic about their defence of assault weapons as sporting guns, as they put it.

The vision they showed often had people shooting on full auto not just semi. Semi automatic guns/rifles used to be legal here as well until some nut case with one went to Port Arthur and committed mass murder, enough said really.

[phibbzy]

I thought it was reasonably obvious that I was being some what sarcastic about their defence of assault weapons as sporting guns, as they put it.

The vision they showed often had people shooting on full auto not just semi. Semi automatic guns/rifles used to be legal here as well until some nut case with one went to Port Arthur and committed mass murder, enough said really.

Wasn't obvious at all, in your own words you were being frank :confused:

Most of the clips in the first 2 minutes or so were semi automatic with NFA approved mods & the automatic firearms we're most probably dealer only post '86 manufacture (only federally licensed arms dealers permitted to own) or pre '86 registered arms which are prohibitively expensive to purchase as there is only a set amount.

Bryant didn't ban anything, Howard did by utilizing the public emotion of the massacre to send the media and the grieving Australian public into a frenzy.

Tasmania had the laws that would have prevented the massacre under The Guns Act 1991 - specifically licensing. The amendments for registration and prohibition of certain weapons were introduced also but failed to pass. They apposed this citing it as a "bureaucratic nightmare", "too costly and hard to enforce" and "proved ineffective elsewhere".

If the laws were followed that were introduced Bryant would be a prohibited person to own a firearm with a confirmed mental disorder. He never possessed a firearms permit as required by law.

So now we have all states and territories running cumbersome registries for air rifles & flint locks costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in operation and enforcement while at the same time providing a shopping list for criminals who can't be bothered importing 200 Glocks from Germany so they just go and rip off someone following the laws.

Meanwhile we still had another mass shooting - foiled by regular people - uncountable shootings and drive by's and a string of mass murders through the decade, gun deaths continued their natural decline in a fairly linear pattern and criminals continued to not give 2 shakes about the laws, still used their guns on the even more soft public and started making money from the arms black market.

Even in 1990 your looking at 600 deaths a year from guns - including suicide. Today its around 250. The biggest single drop of deaths was seen with the introduction of licensing in NSW around 1988-89. Surely the most level headed approach would be to do what you can that was effective and spend the money & policing resources saving statistical lives elsewhere.

Our country made millions of people directly pay for 1 mans insanity and the rest of us indirectly to support it.

Bryant got what he deserved - a long life in a box drugged up to the eye balls day after day.

Sorry for the rant but as Landy's & the outdoors are my recreation and passion I get a bit annoyed.

I understand your OP was for humor - IV8888 is a bit of a southerner but he would appear to be a genuine human being from what I've seen of him.

[BadCo.]

Well said phibzby.

In NZ there are a few people that are pushing for blanket gun registration. Only problem with that is (as you pointed out) the people killing people with guns are not the ones who legally purchased and own them.

I like to think we have fairly sensible arms laws in NZ.

[TerryO]

Can someone explain to me what the sport is where you need a AK-47 please?

I'm not talking about a handful of professional shooters in helicopters shooting feral deer with SLR's in NZ's South Island either as they used to and maybe still do. I'm talking about the general public owning these types of weapons.

As I have said when I was younger I used to go shooting and I enjoyed it, both hunting and range shooting here and originally in NZ, but who really needs a fairly inaccurate assault rifle like a AK-47? Because that was one of the five weapons that was in that top five video.

[BadCo.]

Ever heard of plinking?

I have a SKS I use for plinking (same ammo as the AK-47) as you can get surplus ammo for around 50 cents a shot.

The AK is to expensive for me.

[disco man]

Hello from Brisbane.

Watching the video it didn't occur to me that those two savants were really talking about necessary hunting tools at all.

The central thesis of the clip from my viewing was "what 5 guns might you like to get a hold of that the guv'mnt might prefer you didn't" and/or "what 5 guns are the pinko media most likely to track down when wanting to highlight what the looney gun freaks are hiding in the back of the cupboard".

The final choice seems to have worked, based on the response to the thread along the lines of "what the hell do you need those for"?

Having been to one or two American gun shops, especially in the South and Southwest for a bit of low entertainment I found myself asking the same question.

Cheers,

What an eyeopener some of the gun shops in Baton Rouge are:o

[TerryO]

Sorry no I have not heard of plinking, wasn't it a SKS that was used at Port Arthur?

[Ancient Mariner]

Sorry no I have not heard of plinking, wasn't it a SKS that was used at Port Arthur?
.30 MI

[BadCo.]

Sorry no I have not heard of plinking, wasn't it a SKS that was used at Port Arthur?

Have a quick read through this (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plinking).

[vnx205]

According to that link:
The most common calibre used for plinking is the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge,[2] since these rounds are relatively inexpensive and have a low recoil, but airguns and airsoft guns are also used, often for cost or safety reasons or because they are subject to less stringent regulation.

So that article seems to be suggesting that most people don't need an AK47 for plinking. :)

[disco man]

Can someone explain to me what the sport is where you need a AK-47 please?

I'm not talking about a handful of professional shooters in helicopters shooting feral deer with SLR's in NZ's South Island either as they used to and maybe still do. I'm talking about the general public owning these types of weapons.

As I have said when I was younger I used to go shooting and I enjoyed it, both hunting and range shooting here and originally in NZ, but who really needs a fairly inaccurate assault rifle like a AK-47? Because that was one of the five weapons that was in that top five video.

I am with Terry on this one,who needs a weapon like that? and for what purpose?

[BadCo.]

Yes it says 22lr is most common calibre, but why? Because they are relatively inexpensive. Around 12 cents. As I said above I use my SKS because you can get cheap surplus ammo, around 50 cents compared to $2 for my 308 hunting rifle.

It's also good practise for hunting, as you often never shoot your rifle when out on a deer stalk. Shooting a cheap 30 cal can help stay on the ball rather then spending four times as much.

And plus, shooting **** with a semi auto 30 cal is just damn fun!

[phibbzy]

Can someone explain to me what the sport is where you need a AK-47 please?

I'm not talking about a handful of professional shooters in helicopters shooting feral deer with SLR's in NZ's South Island either as they used to and maybe still do. I'm talking about the general public owning these types of weapons.

As I have said when I was younger I used to go shooting and I enjoyed it, both hunting and range shooting here and originally in NZ, but who really needs a fairly inaccurate assault rifle like a AK-47? Because that was one of the five weapons that was in that top five video.

Essentially, every event that utilises a sporting rifle platform can and commonly do use the AK platform. Practical rifle events & obstacle clearance type competitions are probably chief amongst them.

The AK47 platform is far from inaccurate - the 7.62x39mm round is perfectly accurate out to 500 meters which is perfectly acceptable.

You have to take into account that AK47's and other modern sporting rifles are not slapped together on a lathe in Latvia anymore.

REGARDLESS of the above, some of the only semi automatic rifles you can get in Australia at acceptable rates are chambered in the soviet round...

Plinking is recreational target shooting on impromptu or static targets. This can either be on a range or private land. Essentially, plinking is target shooting without competition and its great fun, sharpens your ability and lets you try different things.

Plinking is not limited to .22lr or rimfire cartridges - this is the common cartridge simply because price. You can buy 500 rounds for $40 even in Australia. If you can afford it, you can plink with it.

Ironic that you bring up New Zealand where the laws allow citizens to own and use military style semi automatics for hunting use (if chosen for) or for plinking and where an AR15 can be owned on the basic firearms permit. Half the population hunts or is directly connecting to hunting culture and guns - interestingly anti gunners are seen as alarmists and disconnected from reality.

New Zealand really does have a logical approach to their firearms laws which are centered around personal accountability and responsibility rather than restrictions and control. Funny that New Zealand was rated as the most free nation on earth recently...

The AR15 platform & the L1A1 battle rifle were used by Bryant.

SKS
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/09/320.jpg

Need is irrelevant, in fact, I can say I genuinely need an AR15 for a lot of the recreational shooting I do. There is a reason millions of them are in the hands of civilians in the states - they're a bloody good rifle for everything from small deer, hog, small game etc... they are the same caliber as a .22LR.

Armed forces do NOT use the AR15 due to lethality or because it makes the enemy crap their pants. The AR15 is a reliable rifle that is easy to train soliders on but most importantly a soldier can carry 4 times the ammunition as its predecessor, the M1A1 battle rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO. You can also fire the 5.56mm in the AR15 fully automatic while keeping a spread on the enemy where the 7.62 will end up as an anti aircraft weapon in the hands of most soldiers. Today, the M1A3 is primarily a semi automatic rifle in the military.

[phibbzy]

I am with Terry on this one,who needs a weapon like that? and for what purpose?

Okay well here you go. While the SKS is a different design operationally to the AK47 its the same caliber and shares the same build style, quality and a lot of features can be changed out to adapt to the AK47.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTpTIVlC7Ho

So yes, there is a genuine use. They are needed by people for recreation and professional uses. They are not more or less dangerous than any other firearm.

[TerryO]

Thank you for explaining plinking guys, I used to do something similar 30 + years ago with my then mates with good old WW2 303's.

I don't mind admitting I would love to have a go with a decent semi automatic large calibre rifle, but more than likely only once or twice. Personally I wouldn't want a AK-47 or even a AR15 locked up in a box in my house. Way to many things that can go wrong, having said that I reckon hand guns have even greater risk.

Edited* ...while I accept that NZ has very relaxed gun laws I'm not sure your quite right about it being widely accepted that semi automatic rifles are ok. I still have lots of relatives and friends back home and most think I am a gun crazy because I like the idea of gun ownership even though I no longer own any.

[disco man]

Okay well here you go. While the SKS is a different design operationally to the AK47 its the same caliber and shares the same build style, quality and a lot of features can be changed out to adapt to the AK47.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTpTIVlC7Ho

So yes, there is a genuine use. They are needed by people for recreation and professional uses. They are not more or less dangerous than any other firearm.

Ok fair enough point taken, For professional uses i see a need. But for recreation it seems more of a want. I have been hunting pigs for 15 years and get by just fine with two dogs and a knife,but that's just the way i like to hunt i know that style of hunting is not for everybody.

Not trying to start a argument with you mate,but for recreation it seems more of a want than a need.

[phibbzy]

Thank you for explaining plinking guys, We used to do something similar 30 years ago with my mates with good old WW2 303's.

I would love to have a go with a decent semi automatic large calibre rifle, but more than likely only once or twice. Personally I wouldn't want a AK-47 or even a AR15 locked up in a box in my house.

Then don't have one locked up in a box in your house. :wasntme:

More room for spare landy parts then ;)

[mox]

I thought it was reasonably obvious that I was being some what sarcastic about their defence of assault weapons as sporting guns, as they put it.

The vision they showed often had people shooting on full auto not just semi. Semi automatic guns/rifles used to be legal here as well until some nut case with one went to Port Arthur and committed mass murder, enough said really.



Then following this post are others that claim it was Martin Bryant who committed this mass murder. He had a background as a nut case in some respects. Also, had few friends or relatives likely to actively defend him against suspect charges. So made an appropriate "patsy" to blame for a "false flag" type shooting. False flags are when it is arranged for an atrocity to be committed for the purpose of falsely blaming someone and/or secretly pursuing an agenda. In this case drumming up public support or at least acceptance of tough gun laws.


Some of the shootings alleged to have been done on the sole initiative of a "lone nut gunman" on close examination have obviously had others involved in the planning and coverup. , Especially of details the authorities and mainstream media have attempted to keep hidden. Note the circumstances of Martin Bryant's arrest. He had been in the Seascape Cottage during an overnight siege. A large number of shots were fired there, but seems no one was hit. Totally inconsistent with the deadly accuracy and very high kill to wounding ratio with the massacre starting at the Broad Arrow Cafe the previous day.


After Seascape Cottage was set on fire, Martin Bryant came running out, unarmed, with clothes on fire and appearing to be drugged yelling "Don't shoot, I am the hostage". Note firearms allegedly used by him had breeches blown. This rarely occurs accidentally - such as from a double loading of propellant in a bullet which usually cause hand injuries such as fingers blown off which Martin did not have. However, blowing breeches with plastic explosive is a well recognised technique to destroy evidence of marks that particular firearm leaves on projectiles. Among the suspect official story re firearms used, it seems parts to complete them came from NSW Police firearms library after inadequate explanation re missing bits.


Often with standard police operating procedures, it takes some time before details of alleged perpetrators of crimes are made public. They often have to do further investigations and double checking first. However, a lot about Martin Bryant was very quickly given widespread coverage by the mainstream media. Much of it amounted to contempt of court by including material that could seriously prejudice a fair trial. Then he did not have a trial anyway. Only "Trial By Media". Was eventually pressured to plead guilty by a crooked lawyer supposedly representing him after six months in illegal solitary confinement. The claim sometimes made that he was found guilty is a BLATANT LIE! Could not have been convicted with a proper defence due to lack of evidence he was the gunman and a lot to indicate he wasn't.


When "Lone Nut Gunman " type shootings which were most likely deliberately preplanned by others occur, the gunman usually supposedly commits suicide or is killed in a shootout. This reduces the problem of covering up what really happened in subsequent court proceedings. However, Martin Bryant could not have been shot while unarmed in front of witnesses.


It seems the real main Port Arthur gunman was a young bloke from South Australia who died - supposedly suicide six months later. Is important to note descriptions of him from several witnesses which official report ignores. Including that he appeared no older than early 20's and with heavily pock marked face. Martin Bryant was then aged 28 and had a smooth complexion. Also, Martin had been an amateurish left handed shot. The gunman was a right handed crack shot Obviously not just a genuine deranged nut who normally fires a large number of shots relative to those that actually kill or cause injury.


I expect that some who read this will again try to label me as just pushing crackpot conspiracy theories. However, those who try to debunk them largely just expose their lack of knowledge on the issue.
Those who have studied details of the Port Arthur Massacre story which are inconsistent with the official story but now readily accessible thanks to the Internet realise there was a big cover up. Also, that there are many among "powers that be" who have strong vested interests in the truth remaining hidden. Meanwhile, there is an innocent man presently incarcerated in Risden Prison for life. What is needed is enough public pressure to force a proper enquiry into the true story.

[303gunner]

I am with Terry on this one,who needs a weapon like that? and for what purpose?


I don't like how these arguments revolve around the "need", when it should be the owner's choice of what they do with their hobby.


Who really needs a HSV Commodore? Let's ban them!


Why should the lady down the road need 6 Shi-Tzu dogs? Let's ban owning more than 2.


Who needs 31 flavours of ice cream, when vanilla does the same job? Ban fancy flavours!


I can categorically state that there is no need for anyone to own and use a Blackpowder Muzzleloader, but thousands of shooters do and they are fun and challenging to shoot. The use of "Sport" in Sporting Rifle is used in the same way as in "Sports Car", ie fun and enjoyable, not necessarily competitive or in team games. Just because you see an Austin Healy Bugeye as a hopelessly impractical vehicle, doesn't mean that someone else won't find it enjoyable. And while you don't personally see any merits in a Semi-Auto, others do.


And before you go saying that rapid firing semi-autos and full-autos are more dangerous than single shot rifles:


13-Year-Old Trick Shooter Dylan Holsey on 'American Guns' - YouTube

[TerryO]

Anyway like it or not the gun laws are what they are and personally the way things are going with some pretend gangster groups in some sections of society who feel the need to drive around shooting at each other's houses and cars I reckon that is a good thing.

Right now all these pretend gangsters have illegally imported or stolen hand guns and the odd semi automatic rifle, but if the laws had not been changed then there would be tens of thousands of high powered semi automatic rifles that would be easy to access for them to be using.

Worse still is more than likely to come with the potential religious radicalising of some ethnic groups in society, imagine these nutters running around with SKS's and AR's wanting to make a religious point instead of knives?

Guns can and are good fun in the right hands and I for one know that, but its the easy access of guns getting into the hands of the wrong people, especially semi automatic rifles etc, that can cause trouble on a massive scale and right now there seems to be more and more 'wrong' people wanting to cause others in our society harm.
In time it might be seen that the Port Arthur massacre that caused our gun laws to be so radically changed has had the positive knock on effect of making it near impossible for these radicalised religious zealots to get their hands on high powered semi automatic rifles, which I think few would argue against.

[purples3t]

Do you drive a jeep ? so why are you trying to use an american poo tube clip as a reference ? our govenment wastes money and time on the gun issue,and when i say wastes i am not kidding !
Gun control....being able to hit what you aim at !
We all know that being American means being able to control the sparrow population with a 50 cal barrett. We live in Australia and do it with an air rifle...i ask who is smarter ?

[gossamer]

Then following this post are others that claim it was Martin Bryant who committed this mass murder. He had a background as a nut case in some respects. Also, had few friends or relatives likely to actively defend him against suspect charges. So made an appropriate "patsy" to blame for a "false flag" type shooting. False flags are when it is arranged for an atrocity to be committed for the purpose of falsely blaming someone and/or secretly pursuing an agenda. In this case drumming up public support or at least acceptance of tough gun laws.


Some of the shootings alleged to have been done on the sole initiative of a "lone nut gunman" on close examination have obviously had others involved in the planning and coverup. , Especially of details the authorities and mainstream media have attempted to keep hidden. Note the circumstances of Martin Bryant's arrest. He had been in the Seascape Cottage during an overnight siege. A large number of shots were fired there, but seems no one was hit. Totally inconsistent with the deadly accuracy and very high kill to wounding ratio with the massacre starting at the Broad Arrow Cafe the previous day.


After Seascape Cottage was set on fire, Martin Bryant came running out, unarmed, with clothes on fire and appearing to be drugged yelling "Don't shoot, I am the hostage". Note firearms allegedly used by him had breeches blown. This rarely occurs accidentally - such as from a double loading of propellant in a bullet which usually cause hand injuries such as fingers blown off which Martin did not have. However, blowing breeches with plastic explosive is a well recognised technique to destroy evidence of marks that particular firearm leaves on projectiles. Among the suspect official story re firearms used, it seems parts to complete them came from NSW Police firearms library after inadequate explanation re missing bits.


Often with standard police operating procedures, it takes some time before details of alleged perpetrators of crimes are made public. They often have to do further investigations and double checking first. However, a lot about Martin Bryant was very quickly given widespread coverage by the mainstream media. Much of it amounted to contempt of court by including material that could seriously prejudice a fair trial. Then he did not have a trial anyway. Only "Trial By Media". Was eventually pressured to plead guilty by a crooked lawyer supposedly representing him after six months in illegal solitary confinement. The claim sometimes made that he was found guilty is a BLATANT LIE! Could not have been convicted with a proper defence due to lack of evidence he was the gunman and a lot to indicate he wasn't.


When "Lone Nut Gunman " type shootings which were most likely deliberately preplanned by others occur, the gunman usually supposedly commits suicide or is killed in a shootout. This reduces the problem of covering up what really happened in subsequent court proceedings. However, Martin Bryant could not have been shot while unarmed in front of witnesses.


It seems the real main Port Arthur gunman was a young bloke from South Australia who died - supposedly suicide six months later. Is important to note descriptions of him from several witnesses which official report ignores. Including that he appeared no older than early 20's and with heavily pock marked face. Martin Bryant was then aged 28 and had a smooth complexion. Also, Martin had been an amateurish left handed shot. The gunman was a right handed crack shot Obviously not just a genuine deranged nut who normally fires a large number of shots relative to those that actually kill or cause injury.


I expect that some who read this will again try to label me as just pushing crackpot conspiracy theories. However, those who try to debunk them largely just expose their lack of knowledge on the issue.
Those who have studied details of the Port Arthur Massacre story which are inconsistent with the official story but now readily accessible thanks to the Internet realise there was a big cover up. Also, that there are many among "powers that be" who have strong vested interests in the truth remaining hidden. Meanwhile, there is an innocent man presently incarcerated in Risden Prison for life. What is needed is enough public pressure to force a proper enquiry into the true story.

My at the time sister in law's Uncle and Aunty were on the bus outside the cafe, they had no idea what was going on inside and as they were leaving the bus the Aunty was shot and killed, the Uncle ran back onto the bus and hid under a seat, the gunman followed him onto the bus found him and pointed the gun staight at him and pulled the trigger, the bullet went down the side of his neck and out the other side, he suvived and identified Martin Bryant as the shooter.

[S3ute]

My at the time sister in law's Uncle and Aunty were on the bus outside the cafe, they had no idea what was going on inside and as they were leaving the bus the Aunty was shot and killed, the Uncle ran back onto the bus and hid under a seat, the gunman followed him onto the bus found him and pointed the gun straight at him and pulled the trigger, the bullet went down the side of his neck and out the other side, he survived and identified Martin Bryant as the shooter.

Genuinely sorry to hear that - terrible event all around.

[mox]

My at the time sister in law's Uncle and Aunty were on the bus outside the cafe, they had no idea what was going on inside and as they were leaving the bus the Aunty was shot and killed, the Uncle ran back onto the bus and hid under a seat, the gunman followed him onto the bus found him and pointed the gun staight at him and pulled the trigger, the bullet went down the side of his neck and out the other side, he suvived and identified Martin Bryant as the shooter.



Remember how when someone is charged with a crime, there are legal restrictions on details and also photos of the accused being published. However, after the Port Arthur massacre, this rule was blatantly ignored. The Hobart Mercury and other media should have been charged with contempt of court with their immediate saturation coverage of pictures of Martin Bryant and accompanying articles vilifying him. Included doctored photos showing him with a mad look in his eyes. Martin was identified as the gunman after "Trial by Media". It is not surprising that some witnesses who had a brief look at the gunman had their memories corrupted before making statements many days after the event. Also, police were obviously selectively collecting evidence to support the official story and disregarding that which did not. Seems the main similar thing about Martin and the gunman was long light coloured hair although there were arguably significant differences between them. Is important to note that the gunman would have needed ear plugs or other hearing protection, which long hair - maybe as a wig would provide. Otherwise would have been impossible to fire .223 and .308 rifles rapidly and accurately with noise painful to ears.


If Martin Bryant had had a properly defended trial, the identity of the gunman would have been among the first thing to be questioned. When several credible witnesses, including people who had known Martin at least by sight as he had previously visited Port Arthur a lot were sure Martin was not the gunman and little or no other convincing evidence could be provided to show he was, conviction of him could not have occurred. Then this would have presented a problem for those involved in the conspiracy. Trying to find someone else to blame while keeping what really happened covered up. There could have been some other innocent person subsequently set up.


Remember after the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing in 1978 those falsely accused spent several years in jail before being acquitted. A police officer injured in the blast eventually assembled strong evidence that the bomb had been placed by the NSW Police Special Branch. Was intended it be "discovered" just before the CHOGM meeting to justify continued existence of the Branch, which was at risk of being disbanded. Problem was garbage truck arrived early and bomb was detonated by the compacter. So then police had to find someone they could plausibly blame.

[Sprint]

1: getting hold of an illegal firearm, of any type hasnt gotten any harder post Port Arthur, all that has changed is the profit to be made from dealing in now illegal, or at least unregistered firearms. IF i wanted to, I could purchase a semi automatic firearm in less time than it would take me to get a big mac.... maybe a couple of hours longer if I wanted something fully automatic.... but it'd cost a LOT of coin...

2: the buzz about semi/fully automatic weapons as being such evil things is crap, theyre only being picked on because theyre capable of a greater rate of fire and the media loves to jump on the automatic weapons bandwagon, a single shot blackpowder muzzle loader is just as lethal, just slower

3: I've discussed a scenario with a couple of firearms instructors and police officers, where a shooter does his thing with a normal bolt action rifle, and all agreed that my scenario was more concerning than some nutjob with an uzi...

4: Want vs Need... Think of it like this, a P plater is just as able to get himself killed driving a hyundai excel as he is a VB commodore with a 253... so why not ban P platers from driving hyundai's too? a .177 air rifle is just as lethal as a M2 .50cal machine gun....

[85 county]

Edited* ...while I accept that NZ has very relaxed gun laws I'm not sure your quite right about it being widely accepted that semi automatic rifles are ok. I still have lots of relatives and friends back home and most think I am a gun crazy because I like the idea of gun ownership even though I no longer own any.

Not true,

[TerryO]

Not true,


So you are of the opinion that you know what many of my family and friends in NZ think? ... I have some news for you, you don't.

[Sprint]

UPDATE: US worker who beheaded colleague after being sacked 'not linked to terrorism' - 9news.com.au (http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/09/27/07/57/us-worker-beheads-colleague-after-being-sacked)

well gee..... are we going out have a registration system for blades now?

[85 county]

So you are of the opinion that you know what many of my family and friends in NZ think? ... I have some news for you, you don't.


you stated "..while I accept that NZ has very relaxed gun laws"

New Zealand has not got relaxed gun laws, compared to Australia it has very smart and intelligent laws laws.

rather than a blanket ban on types. NZ has a like a justification. IE as a goat Culler, a suppressed 223 colt ( that's an M16) is quite legal. but you can not buy an M16 if your not a goat culler. simply because you can not justify a visible ( 30 round) nor can you justify a pistol grip.

a recreational pig hunter can justify a AKS with a 30 round mag ( exposed) but not a pistol grip. as a result an AK47 is out.

if you want a hand gun, well lets say you have to try realty hard and good luck LOL

but you are correct about one thing. i do not know what many of your family and friends in NZ think. and i do not care.
but i know what i know since fire arms in New Zealand and other country's have been a major part of my life. having worked as a culler in both NZ and Australia.

[85 county]

UPDATE: US worker who beheaded colleague after being sacked 'not linked to terrorism' - 9news.com.au (http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/09/27/07/57/us-worker-beheads-colleague-after-being-sacked)

well gee..... are we going out have a registration system for blades now?


Oh that's sick

[Disco Muppet]

I wondered how long it would take for the port arthur conspiracy theory to re-emerge :D

[Ferret]

... a .177 air rifle is just as lethal as a M2 .50cal machine gun....

Once word of this spreads more widely I'd expect to see militia everywhere mounting air rifles in the back of Toyota utes. :D

[Greatsouthernland]

I am confused to start with, the post is around one thing and the video is about something completely different. The irony being that the video is about misconceptions around firearms and your post is about how a commonly used type of firearm could not possibly have any use... lol:D

.

^ this x 1,000,000

Unbelievable thread...seriously, if not trolling, what was the intent? :eek:

[bob10]

Ok fair enough point taken, For professional uses i see a need. But for recreation it seems more of a want. I have been hunting pigs for 15 years and get by just fine with two dogs and a knife,but that's just the way i like to hunt i know that style of hunting is not for everybody.

Not trying to start a argument with you mate,but for recreation it seems more of a want than a need.


That's how my brother & I & a couple of mates chased pigs up near Goondiwindi many years ago, main reason being the owners of the properties did not allow shooting, as the country was scrubby, and you couldn't get a clear line of sight for any distance. Could have carried & shot animals, people, you wouldn't know. Back when we were on the land in western Qld, Dad had a single shot martini henry action rifle. His philosophy was, if you couldn't hit it in one shot, don't bother. He could, by goodness he could shoot. Don't know how old the rifle was, I haven't seen one since. Bob

[460cixy]

Well this is going better then expected I would of thought the antis to have jumped all over this by now. Anyhow. I shoot and I enjoy it this long weekend will be spent in the bush teaching the other half how to shoot should be great anyhow carry on :)

[Chenz]

Well this is going better then expected I would of thought the antis to have jumped all over this by now. Anyhow. I shoot and I enjoy it this long weekend will be spent in the bush teaching the other half how to shoot should be great any carry on :)

Me too. Maybe it is just so far out there that they are leaving it alone.

I am a sporting shooter and a bolt action rimfire .22, bolt action centerfire for larger game and a double barrel shotgun will put anything I want to legally dispatch and put to use use in this country.

Leave the fancy toys in the states. The anti-gun lobby have enough automatic quick fire mouths here in Oz

[bob10]

Just thinking, back in the late 50's early 60's, the weapon of choice on the land was the Lee Enfield 303, open iron sights, no fancy scopes, I fairly sure I didn't see one semi or automatic weapon . Could be the price of ammunition was too high. A lot of the men back then out west were WW2 ex diggers, those old hard heads would have laughed at the new chum with an automatic weapon, Bob

[disco man]

Well this is going better then expected I would of thought the antis to have jumped all over this by now. Anyhow. I shoot and I enjoy it this long weekend will be spent in the bush teaching the other half how to shoot should be great any carry on :)

G'day mate, As a shooter do you see a need for fully-automatic weapons for recreational shooters? And is the balance of Australian gun laws right? I am not trying to stir the pot or anything like that,i just like hearing different sides of every argument. I guess a better way to put it,is there enough variety available to keep a shooter in Australia happy?

[460cixy]

G'day mate, As a shooter do you see a need for fully-automatic weapons for recreational shooters? And is the balance of Australian gun laws right? I am not trying to stir the pot or anything like that,i just like hearing different sides of every argument. I guess a better way to put it,is there enough variety available to keep a shooter in Australia happy?

I think the laws are pretty good really a few things could be improved like waiting periods for permits to acquire except for those in wa I feel for you poor bastards. For the sort of shooting I do I don't need a semi or auto does not mean I wouldn't have one if I could. Semi autos are still available here under some pretty strict conditions to property owners that that can prove a genuine need

[FeatherWeightDriver]

Especially giving a hand gun to a 2 year old at a party, I guess that is what you call rough justice.

Unfortunately the video Gossamer put up had inappropriate language in it so it can't be shown on the forum so it has been deleted, but its easy to find if you look at the other related videos available on YouTube.

I think its called 'Idiots with guns'

I watched about 30 seconds of that clip, and was completely horrified by what I saw.

The guns had nothing to do with it.

You would have to wonder how those people approach life.

[mark2]

Can someone explain to me what the sport is where you need a AK-47 please?

I'm not talking about a handful of professional shooters in helicopters shooting feral deer with SLR's in NZ's South Island either as they used to and maybe still do. I'm talking about the general public owning these types of weapons.

As I have said when I was younger I used to go shooting and I enjoyed it, both hunting and range shooting here and originally in NZ, but who really needs a fairly inaccurate assault rifle like a AK-47? Because that was one of the five weapons that was in that top five video.

If I am a licensed gun owner and I store and use my AK47/AR15 etc responsibly, who are you to tell me whether I 'need' it or not?

Do you really 'need' a Land Rover? Is off road driving for sheer fun and enjoyment really 'necessary'?

[disco man]

I think the laws are pretty good really a few things could be improved like waiting periods for permits to acquire except for those in wa I feel for you poor bastards. For the sort of shooting I do I don't need a semi or auto does not mean I wouldn't have one if I could. Semi autos are still available here under some pretty strict conditions to property owners that that can prove a genuine need

Thanks mate that was a good balanced answer.

[NavyDiver]

I thought it was reasonably obvious that I was being some what sarcastic about their defence of assault weapons as sporting guns, as they put it.

The vision they showed often had people shooting on full auto not just semi. Semi automatic guns/rifles used to be legal here as well until some nut case with one went to Port Arthur and committed mass murder, enough said really.

sarcastic Terry ? no way mate. Shoot them all I thought you ment:eek:

Hunters or farming tool tools firearms are very different to Military weapons or weapons designed to kill humans. Any tool can be abused or misused Westgate Bridge in Melb has a big fence on both sides now after a murderer killed a little girl for one sad example. Clearly a misused tool:(

Mk 48 torpedos, Fully Automatic and Semi Automatic firearms are tools of military and should not be in the hands of anyone excluding very limited civilian uses in my opinion :angel:

I am very glad American laws are not our firearm laws. Not suggesting ours are perfect, just a lot more sensible and safer for everyone than Machine gun madness with american civilians.

[NavyDiver]

If I am a licensed gun owner and I store and use my AK47/AR15 etc responsibly, who are you to tell me whether I 'need' it or not?

Do you really 'need' a Land Rover? Is off road driving for sheer fun and enjoyment really 'necessary'?

Easy mate. If you have AK47/AR15 even very well locked up more than a few Big burly blokes may be visiting you soon to use your AK47/AR15 for nefarious uses. :eek:

Truthfully pistols are mostly stolen for nefarious abuse
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi361.pdf

[PAT303]

And people steal 4wd's with bull bars to ram raid shops,they also steal performance cars for a quick get away,should ban bull bars,4wd's and HP cars hey. Pat

[mark2]

And people steal 4wd's with bull bars to ram raid shops,they also steal performance cars for a quick get away,should ban bull bars,4wd's and HP cars hey. Pat

Or at least force people to justify why they should own a 4WD.....

[Greatsouthernland]

Don't feed the troll...:angel:;)

The op doesn't understand the massive differences between other country's laws and our own on this subject, demonstrated by the American comparison commented on.

The SSAA has all the facts online to rebut such ill-informed sensationalist comment. Licensed firearm owners in Australia have extensive background checks and meet strict criteria and onerous safe storage obligations, unlike the country used for reference in this ill-conceived thread.

If the op had a license (and hence no prior convictions) he would understand the system in Australia a lot better and perhaps not have posted such ridiculous comment and inference.

http://youtu.be/_gzJD7eKBX4

http://youtu.be/x9th0TM0Gss

[vnx205]

Dad had a single shot martini henry action rifle.
.. ... ..
. Don't know how old the rifle was, I haven't seen one since. Bob

That depends on whether it was the .310 Martini Henry cadet rifle or the .577/450 Martini Henry as used in the Zulu Wars in 1879. :)

A lot of the .310s were converted to .22 Hornet, .218 Bee, .222 rimmed or 357 magnum.

[123rover50]

That depends on whether it was the .310 Martini Henry cadet rifle or the .577/450 Martini Henry as used in the Zulu Wars in 1879. :)

A lot of the .310s were converted to .22 Hornet, .218 Bee, .222 rimmed or 357 magnum.

A lot of the .577/450,s were converted to .303 as well.
Or it may have been a .303 Martini Enfield instead of a Henry as the actions look the same.

[bob10]

That depends on whether it was the .310 Martini Henry cadet rifle or the .577/450 Martini Henry as used in the Zulu Wars in 1879. :)

A lot of the .310s were converted to .22 Hornet, .218 Bee, .222 rimmed or 357 magnum.


The ammunition used seemed like regular use stuff, .222 rimmed may be on the mark, Dad didn't miss often, when he did, he used to tell me the barrel was bent, & he hadn't allowed for it. Like a mug kid, I believed him. Bob :)

[bob10]

A lot of the .577/450,s were converted to .303 as well.
Or it may have been a .303 Martini Enfield instead of a Henry as the actions look the same.




Have to admit, this looks close. Long time ago, Dad let me fire it, I can't remember too much recoil. But this projectile looks on the mark, from memory. Bob
l
Martini-Enfield MkI .303 - YouTube

[85 county]

Have to admit, this looks close. Long time ago, Dad let me fire it, I can't remember too much recoil. But this projectile looks on the mark, from memory. Bob
l

in that case it was not a .577. it could have been a .31, a training version.

but a .577, would knock a kid off his feet

[Gippslander]

I have a cadet rifle from 1897 it was sold by Alcock & Pierce PTY LTD Melbourne, i believe it to be manufactured by Francotte Belgium it is in 297/230 caliber and is a centre fire rifle i have included photo of rifle and bullet which suits it. Is it possible this is the same as your fathers there were a number brought into Australia and used by the cadets.

Gippy.:)

[bob10]

I have a cadet rifle from 1897 it was sold by Alcock & Pierce PTY LTD Melbourne, i believe it to be manufactured by Francotte Belgium it is in 297/230 caliber and is a centre fire rifle i have included photo of rifle and bullet which suits it. Is it possible this is the same as your fathers there were a number brought into Australia and used by the cadets.

Gippy.:)


Could be Gippy, 230 rings a bell. Wish I had it now, TA, Bob
edit-- just had a close look at the picture, that's got to be it

[Gippslander]

Just double checked Bob the first 2,000 rifles were ordered from Francotte in 1896 mine apparently came later when private schools had their own cadet training and according to records i just viewed mine was among them and that was 1904. They are still available for around the 200-400 dollar mark some by BSA and others by Francotte most were in .310 and a lot were changed to .22 when .310 ammo became hard to get.
Gippy:)

[NavyDiver]

Just double checked Bob the first 2,000 rifles were ordered from Francotte in 1896 mine apparently came later when private schools had their own cadet training and according to records i just viewed mine was among them and that was 1904. They are still available for around the 200-400 dollar mark some by BSA and others by Francotte most were in .310 and a lot were changed to .22 when .310 ammo became hard to get.
Gippy:)

My dad grew up in Williamson Vic. He said he and school kids took 303s on the trams/trains to cadet training. I doubt he was private school mind you:D

[Ferret]

Yeah, I remember school cadets carrying the things on the bus when I first went to high school in the early 70's and they were not going to private schools either.

[Bytemrk]

They let me wander around Puckapunyal forest with an SLR when I was 14 :eek::eek:

Looking at my 17y.o. son....I'm happy he's playing Call of Duty... rather than playing with real ones. :angel: