OTB:"even a highly trained, disciplined soldier could not have performed because s/he could not have overcome his/her overwhelming horror and revulsion."

Yeah, no soldier has ever gone on a killing spree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

I could put up dozens of additional examples if you like...

Don't take my word for it that Martin Bryant's kill to wounding ratio was astounding, here is the opinion of Brigadier Ted Sarong:

"Brigadier Ted Serong, former head of Australian forces in Vietnam, was just as impressed.
"There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am."

One reason why most members of the general public have accepted the official story that Bryant was the gunman is that they possess a greatly exaggerated idea of what amateur gunmen are able to do. Not only do amateurs tend to injure many more persons than they kill, they are usually overpowered before they have completed their sinister work. By contrast, the Port Arthur gunman was a thorough professional who was at all times in perfect control.

Vialls wrote:
"The shooter in the Broad Arrow Café at Port Arthur demonstrated all of the qualities of a trained counterterrorist marksman but made no amateur mistakes. Always in motion and point-shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, he killed twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards."

However, we don't have to take the word of people like Vialls and Serong who never saw the Port Arthur gunman shoot with their own eyes. According to eyewitness (and victim) Neville Quin: "He [the gunman] appeared to be the best-trained army guy I've ever seen; his stance was unbelievable."

Also important to consider is that, according to most witnesses, the Broad Arrow Café shooter shot from his right hip. Not only is Bryant left-handed, he told police he had never fired a gun from his hip. We should believe him. It is doubtful that anyone except a highly trained professional shooter could."

http://whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html

Craig Minns,

Apart from his marginal IQ Bryant was not known to be suffering from any mental condition. It would take a cold detachment from the events to allow him to do what he did.

I don't think that the example you gave disproves the contention that Bryant's low intelligence allowed him to kill up close repetitively.
Nor that it is unlikely that a normal, well-trained individual would balk at it.

Can you imagine that there were any particular conditions that applied/contributed in the example you gave? It was an unusual incident, why?

Maybe you can pose an alternative view of how the single offender and it was a single person, Bryant, could have committed the crimes?

BJelly,

A conspiracy would have required an impossible cooperation of investigators.

As well, while some might believe it could be easy to recruit trained personnel to commit such a crime, to me it is highly unlikely outside of Hollywood. It (squad recruitment) presents a whole range of difficulties, not the lest being that any who disagreed would be 100% certain to report the crime being planned.

otb: Unfortunately, that coward Bryant's very low IQ could have allowed him to carry out his disgusting mission that even a highly trained, disciplined soldier could not have performed because s/he could not have overcome his/her overwhelming horror and revulsion.

Even if it was cardboard images, a trained officer/soldier would falter. While being fully aware of the artificiality of the exercise, s/he could confidently be predicted to perform very poorly indeed.

"a trained officer/soldier would falter." ??,No they wouldn't.

CM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Every time the Platoon patrolled past that village the lost a man to a sniper. The village was warned a number of times & asked to hand the sniper over. They didn't & continued to shoot the Platoon,hence the Massacre. No one ever talks about that aspect of the incident.

OTB, my post was in relation to your ludicrous suggestion that membership of an armed force somehow precludes homicidality.

I see no reason to change my mind and I see no reason to entertain any kind of silly conspiracy theories in relation to Port Arthur.

The author's point is strong and is not at all new. Many people and societies throughout history have had to confront their own social values in response to perceived threats, both external and internal. It is because of their examples, both positive and negative, that we have a moral compass to guide us in evaluating how best to respond to threats that we perceive.

One thing that is new for our modern society is the enormous capacity of anonymous, cowardly pamphleteers to disseminate misinformed fear and loathing among the rest of the population. It will become another object lesson for future generations to place on the negative side of their moral compass.

It's just a damned shame that our leaders don't already have it there on their own moral compasses.

That should be 'least' not lest.

BJelly,

Just to add, it doesn't take any drilled stance or marksmanship to shoot someone from as close as Bryant did.

However it would require great evil and a singular cold detachment of which very, very few people are capable of, thank goodness.

Despite all of the bans, limits, restrictions and cotton-wool wraps possible, there is nothing outside of observant people, especially close relatives and acquaintances, noting and reporting suspect behaviour to police.

Craig Minns,

You have not dispelled my argument at all and nor have you posed an alternative explanation.

Jayb,

You have outlined some possible different conditions of the Vietnam incident which was an exception and by definition most unusual, hence the military soul-searching over what went wrong, training, leadership and so on.