The big thing is that if you take the orange tip off it looks like a real gun, that could cause a few panics, have you heard of the port arther massacare?
Yeah i heard of the port arthur massacre rumor has it that it was a military op gone wrong
Mate, the Port Arthur massacre was nothing to do with the army. It was one guy, who illegally purchased an assault style rifle, shooting people without discrimination. He was a seriously unstable person. 35 died and 21 were injured. It was sickening. After this, all the firearms laws tightened up.
Indeed, he's referring to the massive discrepencies surrounding the event, such as but not limited to:
The impossible accuracy firing from the hip, using his assault rifle of choice, not only would it have deafened the shooter, but his accuracy (from the hip) was something like 99.9%
The reality of it was, the guy was inexperienced with firearms, yet he weilded the accuracy and markmanship of a highly trained military soldier, his accuracy can only be compared to some of the best shooters in the world.
Other than that, he was a local, yet the witnesses could not identify him, saying that the shooter had a different face than Bryan, also noted he was wearing a blonde wig.
However many witnesses have followed up this case, but have been ignored completely. Statements being stricken from the record if they did not match the official media/police line.
There was an anonymous call made to the only two police squads available in the area, that stated a heroin shipment tip off at the furthest location away from port arthur in there police jurisdiction. At the exact moment they arrive (and found no heroin, which itself is a first ever for a tip off of that scale), the shooting began.
Bryan was not even trialled. Before he was even aware that he was being charged, his face had already been blasted on the front page of the newspapers with a title stating something resembling: MURDERER (cit. needed here)
Of course, the witnesses had then seen his picture in the paper, so had a clear picture of who the media represented as the killer. Some witnesses reported him at the port arthur site, the clothes the witness stated he was wearing were the same as the clothes he was pictured in the newspaper (which was not the clothing of the murderer at port arthur on that day).
When presenting evidence, the two interrogators mislead him and also, the footage from the interviews disappeared, most of the interview is on text and mostly blanked out.
The picture of his car at port arthur that day was not a picture of Bryans car, but of a completely random car of the same colour and model, but the number plate was clearly not his.
There were witnesses that day who did see Bryan that day, however those were not included into the record. The entire statement about the events of that day are factually incorrect.
There were also various other fake propaganda involved, such as fake videos of the shootings, which were later scientifically proven to be recorded on a separate day of the shootings.
All in all flashfire007s opinion stands that, instead of this mentally handicapped person pulling this amazing feat of criminal disgust, it makes more sense to him that a small portion of the howard government set the port arthur massacre up in order to make the public agree with the freedom restricting firearms legislation (that they had drafted a year earlier).
Somewhere also is a quote from a politician in a meeting in 1985 (cit. needed here) quoting something like "we won't have firearms legislation reform until there is a massacre in hobart"
I think that's a little bit of the reason why flashfire may hold that opinion.
