Nitram: Brilliant film making, on every level. But as a fact based story - it fails on every level.

[iamwhatiseem]

We watched it last night, and as with any movie based on an actual event - I always look into what actually happened. And this portrayal does a huge disservice to it's viewers by the desire of the producer to drive a pre-conceived point, rather than tell the story.
The movie is about the young man who committed the worst mass shooting in Australian history, and among the worst in the entire world.
The movie sets you up to believe that it was his access to semi auto guns rather than his mental illness that was woefully maltreated, underdiagnosed and all out ignored by Australia's abysmal mental health care.
Caleb Jones was a deeply disturbed young man whose neighbors were terrified of. Throughout his young life he got himself into trouble with everyone around him, including a highly questionable auto accident that resulted in the death of the woman he lived with. What is missing in the film, is that it was reported to the police by people who knew him that he likely purposefully caused the wreck - as he had done in the past. The Australian police didn't even interview him, and wrote it off as an accident.
The fact is, Caleb's life is a long, long story of missed tragedies that were ignored and pushed away by Australian law enforcement.

 

[Magnus]

We watched it last night, and as with any movie based on an actual event - I always look into what actually happened. And this portrayal does a huge disservice to it's viewers by the desire of the producer to drive a pre-conceived point, rather than tell the story.
The movie is about the young man who committed the worst mass shooting in Australian history, and among the worst in the entire world.
The movie sets you up to believe that it was his access to semi auto guns rather than his mental illness that was woefully maltreated, underdiagnosed and all out ignored by Australia's abysmal mental health care.
Caleb Jones was a deeply disturbed young man whose neighbors were terrified of. Throughout his young life he got himself into trouble with everyone around him, including a highly questionable auto accident that resulted in the death of the woman he lived with. What is missing in the film, is that it was reported to the police by people who knew him that he likely purposefully caused the wreck - as he had done in the past. The Australian police didn't even interview him, and wrote it off as an accident.
The fact is, Caleb's life is a long, long story of missed tragedies that were ignored and pushed away by Australian law enforcement.

Caleb Jones is the actor who played the role. The guy who committed the atrocity is Martin Bryant. The movie, btw, is a reversal of his first name since it is supposed to show the movie in reverse.

Now that we got that out of the way... Your statement that the movie got it wrong... Are you saying that the Australians who lived through this tragedy got it wrong, too?

When this crime happened, the whole country was devastated. But unlike the US, the Australian PM, John Howard - a strong, proud conservative did not just mouth the usual, "thoughts & prayers" but went on to establish strong anti-gun laws.

Are you saying that you know better than the Australian conservatives?

https://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html​

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Caleb Jones is the actor who played the role. The guy who committed the atrocity is Martin Bryant. The movie, btw, is a reversal of his first name since it is supposed to show the movie in reverse.

Now, we got that out of the way, Your statement that the movie got it wrong... Are you saying that the Australians who lived through this tragedy got it wrong, too?

When this crime happened, the whole country was devastated. But unlike the US, the Australian PM, John Howard - a strong, proud conservative did not just mouth the usual, "thoughts & prayers" but went on to establish strong anti-gun laws.

Are you saying that you know better than the Australian conservatives?

https://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html​

And the result of the "strict gun laws"??
There are more semi automatic guns owned in Australia today than in 1996 when the event happened.
There are many more guns period owned in Australia today than 1996.
The causation of the event is three fold:
1) Martin Bryant (thank you for the correction, I miss read) was a psychopath with an IQ of 66.
2) Despite the OBVIOUS low IQ and OBVIOUS mental instability, gun shops sold him guns because he had the money, ignoring already existing gun laws that would have prevented him from buying anything but a BB gun,
3) His mental health and long list of violent/erratic behaviors were ignored repeatedly by authorities.
The police didn't even interview Bryant after the car accident, if they would have, and based on testimonies of other people saying he would grab the steering wheel and try to wreck them, he would have at LEAST stood trial for the murder of the heiress. But they didn't even interview him.

 

[Magnus]

And the result of the "strict gun laws"??
There are more semi automatic guns owned in Australia today than in 1996 when the event happened.
There are many more guns period owned in Australia today than 1996.
The causation of the event is three fold:
1) Martin Bryant (thank you for the correction, I miss read) was a psychopath with an IQ of 66.
2) Despite the OBVIOUS low IQ and OBVIOUS mental instability, gun shops sold him guns because he had the money, ignoring already existing gun laws that would have prevented him from buying anything but a BB gun,
3) His mental health and long list of violent/erratic behaviors were ignored repeatedly by authorities.
The police didn't even interview Bryant after the car accident, if they would have, and based on testimonies of other people saying he would grab the steering wheel and try to wreck them, he would have at LEAST stood trial for the murder of the heiress. But they didn't even interview him.

Prove it. Don't just make idiotic statements. And, when I say, back it up, I mean from sources that are believable. Don't give me sources like BrightFart or some other moronic sites.

Here, let me show you how. This from the WSJ:

Australia’s law changes weren’t wholly popular when they were introduced by a conservative government in 1996, an indication of the resistance that New Zealand’s government may face from some quarters. Gun owners complained that they were being unfairly targeted, and some lawmakers representing rural areas opposed a ban. On one occasion, then-Prime Minister John Howard wore a bulletproof vest to a meeting with angry gun owners.

Since then, though, the system has enjoyed broad support. A poll by Essential Research last year found around 60% of those surveyed thought Australia’s gun laws were about right, while a quarter thought they were too weak. Only 7% thought they were too strict.

There has been one mass shooting—those in which at least five people were killed, excluding the shooter—in Australia since 1996, compared with 13 in the preceding two decades. The Port Arthur massacre, in which a gunman killed 35 people at a tourist site in Tasmania, prompted the clampdown.

In an interview with a University of Melbourne publication last year, Mr. Howard said the Australian ban worked because it was comprehensive with few exceptions. “The principle had to be a total prohibition on automatic and semiautomatic weapons,” he said. “Every piece of evidence that I have seen since in the context of massacres in the U.S. bears that out.”

New Zealand Models Guns Clampdown on Australian Experience

New Zealand’s plans to ban military-style semiautomatic and assault weapons in response to a terrorist attack on two mosques. Neighboring Australia introduced tighter gun laws after a 1996 massacre.

www.wsj.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Prove it. Don't just make idiotic statements. And, when I say, back it up, I mean from sources that are believable. Don't give me sources like BrightFart or some other moronic sites.

Here, let me show you how. This from the WSJ:

Australia’s law changes weren’t wholly popular when they were introduced by a conservative government in 1996, an indication of the resistance that New Zealand’s government may face from some quarters. Gun owners complained that they were being unfairly targeted, and some lawmakers representing rural areas opposed a ban. On one occasion, then-Prime Minister John Howard wore a bulletproof vest to a meeting with angry gun owners.

Since then, though, the system has enjoyed broad support. A poll by Essential Research last year found around 60% of those surveyed thought Australia’s gun laws were about right, while a quarter thought they were too weak. Only 7% thought they were too strict.

There has been one mass shooting—those in which at least five people were killed, excluding the shooter—in Australia since 1996, compared with 13 in the preceding two decades. The Port Arthur massacre, in which a gunman killed 35 people at a tourist site in Tasmania, prompted the clampdown.

In an interview with a University of Melbourne publication last year, Mr. Howard said the Australian ban worked because it was comprehensive with few exceptions. “The principle had to be a total prohibition on automatic and semiautomatic weapons,” he said. “Every piece of evidence that I have seen since in the context of massacres in the U.S. bears that out.”

New Zealand Models Guns Clampdown on Australian Experience

New Zealand’s plans to ban military-style semiautomatic and assault weapons in response to a terrorist attack on two mosques. Neighboring Australia introduced tighter gun laws after a 1996 massacre.

www.wsj.com

Australia: More Guns Now Than Before Port Arthur

New research from the Australia Institute finds that there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the Port Arthur massacre and introduction of strict gun controls.

australiainstitute.org.au

New gun ownership figures revealed 25 years on from Port Arthur

www.sydney.edu.au

Need more?

 

[Magnus]

Australia: More Guns Now Than Before Port Arthur

New research from the Australia Institute finds that there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the Port Arthur massacre and introduction of strict gun controls.

australiainstitute.org.au

New gun ownership figures revealed 25 years on from Port Arthur

www.sydney.edu.au

Need more?

So, your point is that gun nuts still buy as many guns as they can. Rest of the population - not so much.

Neither one of them says anything about an increase in violence. In fact one of them specifically mentions the low risk of deaths by gunshot.

Isn't that what we are looking for? Here, in the US, we not only have an increase in gun ownership but also an increase in gun violence.

Next time, learn to read the whole article. If you had, you would have seen this in the second link:

Associate Professor Philip Alpers, a specialist in firearm injury prevention, says:

“In the wake of John Howard’s gun reforms, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot quickly fell by more than half – and it’s stayed that low for 25 years.

“In those same years, there’s also been a significant shift in the country’s gun culture.”

In new figures published yesterday by the university-hosted project GunPolicy.org, Associate Professor Alpers reported: “The proportion of Australians who hold a gun licence has fallen by 48 percent, as each year a smaller segment of the population decide they need a firearm.”

You got more? Sure, post it. But this time make sure to read all of it because I will. Go.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So, your point is that gun nuts still buy as many guns as they can. Rest of the population - not so much.

Neither one of them says anything about an increase in violence. In fact one of them specifically mentions the low risk of deaths by gunshot.

Isn't that what we are looking for? Here, in the US, we not only have an increase in gun ownership but also an increase in gun violence.

Next time, learn to read the whole article. If you had, you would have seen this in the second link:

Associate Professor Philip Alpers, a specialist in firearm injury prevention, says:

“In the wake of John Howard’s gun reforms, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot quickly fell by more than half – and it’s stayed that low for 25 years.

“In those same years, there’s also been a significant shift in the country’s gun culture.”

In new figures published yesterday by the university-hosted project GunPolicy.org, Associate Professor Alpers reported: “The proportion of Australians who hold a gun licence has fallen by 48 percent, as each year a smaller segment of the population decide they need a firearm.”

You got more? Sure, post it. But this time make sure to read all of it because I will. Go.

That is sophomoric.
There are more guns owned in Australia today, than in 1996.
That is a fact.
So if it is the guns, then why has there been no repeat in 25 years?

Martin was, literally, a crazed maniac. Flags, bells, whistles and warning signs were flying everywhere around this young man but because of a total lack of mental healthcare and failure of law enforcement he eventually played out what was certain to happen. (same as currently in the U.S.)
People like Martin can't simply be walking around in public. His psychopathy should have been addressed yeeears before the tragedy. His family were more interested in receiving his health pension than doing what needed to be done. As shown in the film, doctors knew he should be hospitalized and receiving full evaluation... but simply didn't do it to capitulate parents who knew that if he hospitalized - they would lose his monthly check.

 

[Magnus]

That is sophomoric.
There are more guns owned in Australia today, than in 1996.
That is a fact.
So if it is the guns, then why has there been no repeat in 25 years?

Martin was, literally, a crazed maniac. Flags, bells, whistles and warning signs were flying everywhere around this young man but because of a total lack of mental healthcare and failure of law enforcement he eventually played out what was certain to happen. (same as currently in the U.S.)
People like Martin can't simply be walking around in public. His psychopathy should have been addressed yeeears before the tragedy. His family were more interested in receiving his health pension than doing what needed to be done. As shown in the film, doctors knew he should be hospitalized and receiving full evaluation... but simply didn't do it to capitulate parents who knew that if he hospitalized - they would lose his monthly check.

LOL. Sophomoric? Do you even know what that means? Putting up a link without understanding the article would fit that criteria. Which is exactly what you did. Don't start whining if the article you posted does not fit your worldview.

The point of Australia's gun laws was to ensure that the kind of horrific mass murder that has become routine in the US no longer happens.

And, they have done just that. Do you even get that? Or, is that too "sophomoric" for you?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

LOL. Sophomoric? Do you even know what that means? Putting up a link without understanding the article would fit that criteria. Which is exactly what you did. Don't start whining if the article you posted does not fit your worldview.

The point of Australia's gun laws was to ensure that the kind of horrific mass murder that has become routine in the US no longer happens.

And, they have done just that. Do you even get that? Or, is that too "sophomoric" for you?

There are more semi auto and guns in general in the hands of Australians than in 1996

 

[Magnus]

There are more semi auto and guns in general in the hands of Australians than in 1996

Yeah and yet, less violence. So, we should institute the same rules here in the US. You with me?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yeah and yet, less violence. So, we should institute the same rules here in the US. You with me?

Psychopathy is the issue. Always has been. Exactly 100% of every mass murderer on the planet had one thing in common - psychopathy.
Psychopaths account for 27% of all homicides, yet comprise of only .07% of the population.
When a person is diagnosed or suspected of psychopathy they should be immediately scrutinized, look for other signs in their life that increases the odds they will kill - and interned if those conditions exist.
A psychopath who has anger issues, history of erratic/violent behavior, has ever threatened others is almost certain to eventually kill at least one person. Almost certain.
And we do nothing until they eventually do.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That is sophomoric.
There are more guns owned in Australia today, than in 1996.
That is a fact.
So if it is the guns, then why has there been no repeat in 25 years?

Martin was, literally, a crazed maniac. Flags, bells, whistles and warning signs were flying everywhere around this young man but because of a total lack of mental healthcare and failure of law enforcement he eventually played out what was certain to happen. (same as currently in the U.S.)
People like Martin can't simply be walking around in public. His psychopathy should have been addressed yeeears before the tragedy. His family were more interested in receiving his health pension than doing what needed to be done. As shown in the film, doctors knew he should be hospitalized and receiving full evaluation... but simply didn't do it to capitulate parents who knew that if he hospitalized - they would lose his monthly check.

Lobotomy Is the Solution

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Psychopathy is the issue. Always has been. Exactly 100% of every mass murderer on the planet had one thing in common - psychopathy.
Psychopaths account for 27% of all homicides, yet comprise of only .07% of the population.
When a person is diagnosed or suspected of psychopathy they should be immediately scrutinized, look for other signs in their life that increases the odds they will kill - and interned if those conditions exist.
A psychopath who has anger issues, history of erratic/violent behavior, has ever threatened others is almost certain to eventually kill at least one person. Almost certain.
And we do nothing until they eventually do.

Hinckley Should Have Been Executed

Also ordered by the masochistic thug-huggers and gun-grabbers is the insanity defense, which must be eliminated. Thrill-killers like Son of Sam are inspired by it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We stopped interning mentally ill people in the 60s-80s.
And what is the result?
1) The rise of serial killers.
2) Mass murders on innocent people.
3) Significantly increased gun violence.

We need to go back to dealing with problematic mental issues again, instead of relying on medicines that don't work/patients refuse to take and do what is right for the protection of people.