What do you think?
Rate this book
Suddenly One Sunday
Sunday, 28 April 1996, had dawned cool and fine on the sleepy peninsula of Port Arthur in Tasmania. Mick Sargent and Kate Scott were squeezing in some sightseeing before heading back to Perth. Police sergeant Terry McCarthy was at home in Hobart in front of the telly, watching the AFL. Ambulance volunteer Gary Alexander had settled back to watch the local kids' sailing races.
Then a lone gunman opened fire with a semi-automatic weapons at the Broad Arrow Café at historic Port Arthur. Martin Bryant claimed thirty-five lives that day, and injured many more.
Suddenly One Sunday is the true story of that terrible day, as seen and recalled by countless eyewitnesses. Written by Hobart journalist Mike Bingham, and now featuring an epilogue telling how the town and the victims have coped in the years since the tragedy, it is the story that the proud people of Tasmania want told, to set the record straight.
At once chilling and inspiring, Suddenly One Sunday is a story of courage in the face of tragedy, and strength in the face of mind-numbingly senseless murder.
[from 2000 edition].
Then a lone gunman opened fire with a semi-automatic weapons at the Broad Arrow Café at historic Port Arthur. Martin Bryant claimed thirty-five lives that day, and injured many more.
Suddenly One Sunday is the true story of that terrible day, as seen and recalled by countless eyewitnesses. Written by Hobart journalist Mike Bingham, and now featuring an epilogue telling how the town and the victims have coped in the years since the tragedy, it is the story that the proud people of Tasmania want told, to set the record straight.
At once chilling and inspiring, Suddenly One Sunday is a story of courage in the face of tragedy, and strength in the face of mind-numbingly senseless murder.
[from 2000 edition].
178 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1996
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 18, 2019
Australia had experienced several mass shootings before but Port Arthur in 1996 was the worst they ever had. Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded many more. Before him Australia had Julian Knight and Frank Vitkovic in 1987. Then in 1991 they had Wade Frankum who shot and killed people at a local shopping mall.
The book begins with Martin Bryant driving to Port Arthur, getting out of the car, and then eating a meal at the Broad arrow cafe' before going in. Before going into the full details of the massacre the author stops at that point and begins the biography of Martin Bryant. A clearly disturbed and lonely rich kid. The book mentions his childhood interview after he was injured by fire works. I've seen this interview and it's pretty telling at what type of person he was even at a young age.
He's asked "Are you gonna keep playing with fire works?" and Martin tells her "Yeah." and she asks if this experience has taught him anything and he says "Yeah, but I'm still playin with em."
We learn about what might have contributed to the rampage. It appears to me based on all the facts that he committed the massacre due to his rejection by multiple people in his life.
One curious thing about the massacre is what he did during the first half. Despite the absolute cruelity and callousness of the massacre. Plus footage I've seen of him laughing about the massacre and even asking "how many people died?" with a sinister evil smile on his face....it would appear that he spared a man. He went to the guy's house to kill his wife. He was told she was home and he left to go kill her, but the husband said he would come along. Almost immediately Bryant changed his mind and left for Broad Arrow Cafe'. Maybe it was because he didn't have any guns on him. Who knows?
The massacre is detailed through multiple eyewitnesses, but the cafe' is never described. From my understanding it was a very small room and Martin was practically shooting fish in a barrel.
Although it mentions chunks of flesh missing from legs and so forth it never get's too graphic.
I would of liked a better description of the over all lay out of massacre as well. Not very descriptive and a bit confusing.
The author also kept using the Australian slang "paddock". So I had to look that up. Basically a fence for horses.
As a result of this massacre Australia basically banned all guns. So of course there are going to be multiple conspiracy theories to try and discredit it by gun nuts. Very much like the U.S. in modern times. Of course this "Port Arthur was a government conspiracy" is still alive and well in Australia.
An interesting fact about the case. There was a call from someone named "Jamie" who called the authorities to report the massacre. Later a news reporter tried to learn more about what was going on, but couldn't. So she decided to call random residences near the massacre to try and see what they knew. Turned out that she called one house and it was the "Jamie" character who said they were having "fun" and threatened to "kill the hostage." if she called again.
This is exactly what happened in the Brenda Spencer case.
In 1979, 15 year old Brenda Spencer aimed her rifle out of the window at the elementary school across the street and began sniping kids. She shot several school children and killed 2 adults; the principal and janitor. During the mass shooting a news reporter called the houses around the block at random to try and learn about what was going on and Brenda picked up the phone and confessed that she was doing the shooting. The journalist asked her "why" and she said "because mondays are always so boring."
Another massace had happened a month before Martin Bryrant's massacre. In March of 1996 a pedophile antique shop owner shot and killed 16 people [mostly children] at the local elementary school in Scotland. Being so close to the massacre some speculated that Martin was inspired by it. Clearly Martin's rage and resentment and rejection had been building for several years, long before that school shooting. We learn later in the book that he had been planning the massacre and taking steps for 5 months. So in December of 1995. Very much like in Finland, the "no notoriety" tried to blame the 2007 school shooting for a 2008 school shooting, but the the guy had been planning it since 2006 right after being thrown out of the army. Once again, DEBUNKED!
The "stand off" with Martin Bryant is a very good chapter especially since Martin Bryant played mind games with the police which made the commander question whether Martin Bryant was really as "slow" as people thought he was. Clearly, I think he isn't as slow as people thought. After all, some of the words he used typically aren't used by "slow" people and many "slow" serial killers were able to plan and premeditate their murders very well. A perfect example would be Joachim Kroll who was on the borderline of mental retardation...yet he was smart enough to only attack far away from his home and knew when to attack. He also took time to try and curb his impulses because he didn't want to get caught. Very much like BTK. Conspiracy nuts claim that "Martin was too dumb" to have done the Port Arthur massacre. Yet he was shooting fish in a barrel [the cafe'] and was using high powered weapons. Also, what does IQ have to do with your ability to aim effectively? I knew a mentally disabled kid from school who could break dance. It's also very clear that Martin was aiming for the head or neck as he shot people. The victims were also shot almost at point blank range. The book also mentions his girlfriend who said she went with him to buy the ammo/gun bag and he was very selective when buying it. Clearly premeditated. What about her? Is she part of the conspiracy? Did Martin Bryant have a "child like" mind, yes, was he not that bright, yeah, but that doesn't mean he couldn't premeditate. Many "dumb" murderers could premeditate. So if that wasn't true, then I guess all those clearly guilty killers are really innocent?
Near the end of the book it details the day of the massacre but with more details. The first rendition was too vague to comprehend what exactly happened as Martin moved and shot people in terms of the outside setting. It states the guns that were used and the ammo clips. When describing the AR15 it states that it is based off the M16, a U.S Military rifle and is made to "kill or disable." I am glad the author added the word "disable" because most gun nuts will argue that the gun was made to "disable" since it's for war, that you rather disable then kill. Same principal with grenades. Grenades are used mainly to disable. Not to kill. This is a honest point, but clearly it was made to kill as well and to kill and disable effectively. Clearly a case of confirmation bias. "ignore the kill part" and over emphasis the "disable" part. In war I think you would want to kill and maim. I am skeptical about the issue of banning such weapons because of the deadly impact of a shotgun or handgun and there are too many variables in each situation. I think if Martin had a rapid fire shotgun, considering that so many victims were shot very close it would been just as lethal. Especially in the diner. At the same time a shotgun has a very limited firing range. In fact Martin actually did have a rapid fire shotgun in his car. Imagine if he was shooting people in the head with that! If the AR15 is banned then we need to ban rapid fire shotguns as well. Martin in an interview said he didn't use the shotgun because he was afraid of the possible "ricocheting". I dislike politician Rubio but he was correct when he said something in a debate I saw. A legislator said he was against the idea that a gunman could march into a school with a gun that can "fire off 150 rounds in six or seven minutes. That gun should be banned!" and Rubio asked him "are you in favor of banning any gun that can do what the AR15 can do." He also said that if you were to ban AR15's you would have to ban every automatic and semi automatic rifle. The crowd cheered. Rubio said "fair enough" then points to the legislators and supporters of banning the AR15 and said "but my colleagues don't support banning every semi automatic rifle." I've seen people argue that we should just allow handguns and shotguns. Even though they can be just as deadly, handguns are easily concealable and handguns make up the majority of guns used in murder and suicide. Rifles are rarely used even in mass shootings despite what the media says. Cho Seung Hui fired 150 - 200 rounds in 11 minutes with two handguns and killed 30 people. More then Nikolas Cruz who used a AR15, fired 150 rounds and only killed 17 people. It's a mix bag which is why I am skeptical.
When it comes to ammo clips I am not skeptical. There is no reason why anyone would need 30 bullets in one magazine. I've heard the "if theres a robber in your house, 8 bullets might not do it." ASININE! Unless zombie Jason Voorhees is breaking into your house, then yeah...I guess you need 30 bullets, but simply showing the gun or firing one single shot into the air or ground would be enough to make them run off. What world are these people living in?! A world of terminators who are completely fearless and will stop at nothing to steal your TV set?! Laughable. I guess they think the robbers are like action heroes; they run around an onslaught of machine gun fire and are never hit by a bullet while every shot they make hits the target.
Limiting ammo clips can and does save lives. It did in Sandy hook where Adam Lanza had to change his clip and Jesse Lewis yelled "RUN!" and one of the kids ran out as Adam reloaded. It happened with Kip Kinkle who ran out of bullets and pulled out a handgun and was tackled to the floor as he pulled it out. The quote of "firing off 150 rounds in six minutes" sounds more like a ammo issue rather then the gun. Why you think Ian Long chose to use extended ammo clips for his handguns when he shot up a college bar in California? I think Gibson the author of the book Gone boy was correct when he said "All you get is 7 rounds at once, then you have to put a new clip in. Not a bad place to start." If you only got 7 rounds for each clip, then the "150 rounds in six minutes" is a total nonsense argument. I didn't see any of them talking about ammo clips in that debate. Only Rubio mentioned ammo clips when asked about it and said exactly what I would of said, although I would of used more examples as I already did. I must also note that the AR15 is popular because it's a very reliable gun.
The guy who wanted to ban AR15s, when Rubio pointed out that there would still be a thousand legal guns that are identical and can 'do what the AR15 does." he told Rubio "that's not true." Yes it is true. So his arguments are nonsensical.
I do think the security guard having a gun might of saved lives because while Martin was shooting people he had his back turned and the unarmed guard was behing him. Maybe 20 people would of died instead of 35. I guess lucky for the security guard because he would of died a hero. As I already said, the variables of each case is different. So in this specific case maybe the guard being armed would of prevented more deaths.
The very ending of the book is the author looking at the "why" and giving a short update since it was first published. The author explains the why very well. Martin Bryant's attack was the same as many other mass killers typically those who attack random places. Revenge against a society that had utterly rejected them. I'll quote James Alan Fox the expert who first studied mass murder "often times someone will attack totally innocent people. Because in their mind those victims are associated with the REAL ENEMY. In workplace cases. Let's say the post office. The enemy is the postal service. Well, you can't kill the postal service. So one way that people like Mcllvane and Sherrill got even with the postal service is to kill a lot of employees. So the actual victims are pawns." I agree that Martin Bryant was a lonely and pathetic person who just wanted a friend and his existence to be noticed. Sad story all around.
Has flaws but over all not bad at all.
Didn't anger me at certain points like A mother's reckoning. It mentions how Martin was interviewed by a psychiatrist. As always I would of loved to have read the details along with the 3 hour interview with Martin. I've seen some video footage and he comes off as a very sinister person laughing and smiling at times. At one point in the video I've seen he said while giggling "you see, If people didn't do these unfortunate things you guys be out of a job." The author should of put the majority of the interview in the book. I don't understand why he didn't. The shooting in the cafe' should be of been more detailed. Would of liked the layout of the diner to be more detailed.
The book begins with Martin Bryant driving to Port Arthur, getting out of the car, and then eating a meal at the Broad arrow cafe' before going in. Before going into the full details of the massacre the author stops at that point and begins the biography of Martin Bryant. A clearly disturbed and lonely rich kid. The book mentions his childhood interview after he was injured by fire works. I've seen this interview and it's pretty telling at what type of person he was even at a young age.
He's asked "Are you gonna keep playing with fire works?" and Martin tells her "Yeah." and she asks if this experience has taught him anything and he says "Yeah, but I'm still playin with em."
We learn about what might have contributed to the rampage. It appears to me based on all the facts that he committed the massacre due to his rejection by multiple people in his life.
One curious thing about the massacre is what he did during the first half. Despite the absolute cruelity and callousness of the massacre. Plus footage I've seen of him laughing about the massacre and even asking "how many people died?" with a sinister evil smile on his face....it would appear that he spared a man. He went to the guy's house to kill his wife. He was told she was home and he left to go kill her, but the husband said he would come along. Almost immediately Bryant changed his mind and left for Broad Arrow Cafe'. Maybe it was because he didn't have any guns on him. Who knows?
The massacre is detailed through multiple eyewitnesses, but the cafe' is never described. From my understanding it was a very small room and Martin was practically shooting fish in a barrel.
Although it mentions chunks of flesh missing from legs and so forth it never get's too graphic.
I would of liked a better description of the over all lay out of massacre as well. Not very descriptive and a bit confusing.
The author also kept using the Australian slang "paddock". So I had to look that up. Basically a fence for horses.
As a result of this massacre Australia basically banned all guns. So of course there are going to be multiple conspiracy theories to try and discredit it by gun nuts. Very much like the U.S. in modern times. Of course this "Port Arthur was a government conspiracy" is still alive and well in Australia.
An interesting fact about the case. There was a call from someone named "Jamie" who called the authorities to report the massacre. Later a news reporter tried to learn more about what was going on, but couldn't. So she decided to call random residences near the massacre to try and see what they knew. Turned out that she called one house and it was the "Jamie" character who said they were having "fun" and threatened to "kill the hostage." if she called again.
This is exactly what happened in the Brenda Spencer case.
In 1979, 15 year old Brenda Spencer aimed her rifle out of the window at the elementary school across the street and began sniping kids. She shot several school children and killed 2 adults; the principal and janitor. During the mass shooting a news reporter called the houses around the block at random to try and learn about what was going on and Brenda picked up the phone and confessed that she was doing the shooting. The journalist asked her "why" and she said "because mondays are always so boring."
Another massace had happened a month before Martin Bryrant's massacre. In March of 1996 a pedophile antique shop owner shot and killed 16 people [mostly children] at the local elementary school in Scotland. Being so close to the massacre some speculated that Martin was inspired by it. Clearly Martin's rage and resentment and rejection had been building for several years, long before that school shooting. We learn later in the book that he had been planning the massacre and taking steps for 5 months. So in December of 1995. Very much like in Finland, the "no notoriety" tried to blame the 2007 school shooting for a 2008 school shooting, but the the guy had been planning it since 2006 right after being thrown out of the army. Once again, DEBUNKED!
The "stand off" with Martin Bryant is a very good chapter especially since Martin Bryant played mind games with the police which made the commander question whether Martin Bryant was really as "slow" as people thought he was. Clearly, I think he isn't as slow as people thought. After all, some of the words he used typically aren't used by "slow" people and many "slow" serial killers were able to plan and premeditate their murders very well. A perfect example would be Joachim Kroll who was on the borderline of mental retardation...yet he was smart enough to only attack far away from his home and knew when to attack. He also took time to try and curb his impulses because he didn't want to get caught. Very much like BTK. Conspiracy nuts claim that "Martin was too dumb" to have done the Port Arthur massacre. Yet he was shooting fish in a barrel [the cafe'] and was using high powered weapons. Also, what does IQ have to do with your ability to aim effectively? I knew a mentally disabled kid from school who could break dance. It's also very clear that Martin was aiming for the head or neck as he shot people. The victims were also shot almost at point blank range. The book also mentions his girlfriend who said she went with him to buy the ammo/gun bag and he was very selective when buying it. Clearly premeditated. What about her? Is she part of the conspiracy? Did Martin Bryant have a "child like" mind, yes, was he not that bright, yeah, but that doesn't mean he couldn't premeditate. Many "dumb" murderers could premeditate. So if that wasn't true, then I guess all those clearly guilty killers are really innocent?
Near the end of the book it details the day of the massacre but with more details. The first rendition was too vague to comprehend what exactly happened as Martin moved and shot people in terms of the outside setting. It states the guns that were used and the ammo clips. When describing the AR15 it states that it is based off the M16, a U.S Military rifle and is made to "kill or disable." I am glad the author added the word "disable" because most gun nuts will argue that the gun was made to "disable" since it's for war, that you rather disable then kill. Same principal with grenades. Grenades are used mainly to disable. Not to kill. This is a honest point, but clearly it was made to kill as well and to kill and disable effectively. Clearly a case of confirmation bias. "ignore the kill part" and over emphasis the "disable" part. In war I think you would want to kill and maim. I am skeptical about the issue of banning such weapons because of the deadly impact of a shotgun or handgun and there are too many variables in each situation. I think if Martin had a rapid fire shotgun, considering that so many victims were shot very close it would been just as lethal. Especially in the diner. At the same time a shotgun has a very limited firing range. In fact Martin actually did have a rapid fire shotgun in his car. Imagine if he was shooting people in the head with that! If the AR15 is banned then we need to ban rapid fire shotguns as well. Martin in an interview said he didn't use the shotgun because he was afraid of the possible "ricocheting". I dislike politician Rubio but he was correct when he said something in a debate I saw. A legislator said he was against the idea that a gunman could march into a school with a gun that can "fire off 150 rounds in six or seven minutes. That gun should be banned!" and Rubio asked him "are you in favor of banning any gun that can do what the AR15 can do." He also said that if you were to ban AR15's you would have to ban every automatic and semi automatic rifle. The crowd cheered. Rubio said "fair enough" then points to the legislators and supporters of banning the AR15 and said "but my colleagues don't support banning every semi automatic rifle." I've seen people argue that we should just allow handguns and shotguns. Even though they can be just as deadly, handguns are easily concealable and handguns make up the majority of guns used in murder and suicide. Rifles are rarely used even in mass shootings despite what the media says. Cho Seung Hui fired 150 - 200 rounds in 11 minutes with two handguns and killed 30 people. More then Nikolas Cruz who used a AR15, fired 150 rounds and only killed 17 people. It's a mix bag which is why I am skeptical.
When it comes to ammo clips I am not skeptical. There is no reason why anyone would need 30 bullets in one magazine. I've heard the "if theres a robber in your house, 8 bullets might not do it." ASININE! Unless zombie Jason Voorhees is breaking into your house, then yeah...I guess you need 30 bullets, but simply showing the gun or firing one single shot into the air or ground would be enough to make them run off. What world are these people living in?! A world of terminators who are completely fearless and will stop at nothing to steal your TV set?! Laughable. I guess they think the robbers are like action heroes; they run around an onslaught of machine gun fire and are never hit by a bullet while every shot they make hits the target.
Limiting ammo clips can and does save lives. It did in Sandy hook where Adam Lanza had to change his clip and Jesse Lewis yelled "RUN!" and one of the kids ran out as Adam reloaded. It happened with Kip Kinkle who ran out of bullets and pulled out a handgun and was tackled to the floor as he pulled it out. The quote of "firing off 150 rounds in six minutes" sounds more like a ammo issue rather then the gun. Why you think Ian Long chose to use extended ammo clips for his handguns when he shot up a college bar in California? I think Gibson the author of the book Gone boy was correct when he said "All you get is 7 rounds at once, then you have to put a new clip in. Not a bad place to start." If you only got 7 rounds for each clip, then the "150 rounds in six minutes" is a total nonsense argument. I didn't see any of them talking about ammo clips in that debate. Only Rubio mentioned ammo clips when asked about it and said exactly what I would of said, although I would of used more examples as I already did. I must also note that the AR15 is popular because it's a very reliable gun.
The guy who wanted to ban AR15s, when Rubio pointed out that there would still be a thousand legal guns that are identical and can 'do what the AR15 does." he told Rubio "that's not true." Yes it is true. So his arguments are nonsensical.
I do think the security guard having a gun might of saved lives because while Martin was shooting people he had his back turned and the unarmed guard was behing him. Maybe 20 people would of died instead of 35. I guess lucky for the security guard because he would of died a hero. As I already said, the variables of each case is different. So in this specific case maybe the guard being armed would of prevented more deaths.
The very ending of the book is the author looking at the "why" and giving a short update since it was first published. The author explains the why very well. Martin Bryant's attack was the same as many other mass killers typically those who attack random places. Revenge against a society that had utterly rejected them. I'll quote James Alan Fox the expert who first studied mass murder "often times someone will attack totally innocent people. Because in their mind those victims are associated with the REAL ENEMY. In workplace cases. Let's say the post office. The enemy is the postal service. Well, you can't kill the postal service. So one way that people like Mcllvane and Sherrill got even with the postal service is to kill a lot of employees. So the actual victims are pawns." I agree that Martin Bryant was a lonely and pathetic person who just wanted a friend and his existence to be noticed. Sad story all around.
Has flaws but over all not bad at all.
Didn't anger me at certain points like A mother's reckoning. It mentions how Martin was interviewed by a psychiatrist. As always I would of loved to have read the details along with the 3 hour interview with Martin. I've seen some video footage and he comes off as a very sinister person laughing and smiling at times. At one point in the video I've seen he said while giggling "you see, If people didn't do these unfortunate things you guys be out of a job." The author should of put the majority of the interview in the book. I don't understand why he didn't. The shooting in the cafe' should be of been more detailed. Would of liked the layout of the diner to be more detailed.
February 22, 2017
Definitely a good book for an introduction into the Port Arthur Massacre, but I found it to be too sentimental where it should have been bare facts. It was originally published the year of the massacre, which I personally think is a mistake, as it was still fresh and could not have been written as anything but a commemoration of sorts to the victims. It was revised and republished in time for the fourth and last official anniversary, so that wasn't changed much by the epilogue added later.
June 27, 2013
I found this book to be a bit depressing. It seems like a fair accounting of the massacre, but I didn't realize when I started that it was published less than a year after the event. It has the initial reactions, but not the long-term effects and the perspective that only comes with time and distance from the event.
I also thought it should have been better organized as a narrative. There's a summary of the events of the day at the end that would have been better integrated into the rest of the text. Also, only a couple of the victims are spot-lighted to have their stories told. It might have been nice to have a few more of the thirty five victims be more than just names and ages on the page.
I didn't know much about this before so this was a good opening book on the subject, but I feel like there's more to the story than this book attempts to cover.
I also thought it should have been better organized as a narrative. There's a summary of the events of the day at the end that would have been better integrated into the rest of the text. Also, only a couple of the victims are spot-lighted to have their stories told. It might have been nice to have a few more of the thirty five victims be more than just names and ages on the page.
I didn't know much about this before so this was a good opening book on the subject, but I feel like there's more to the story than this book attempts to cover.
March 27, 2016
Obviously not a happy book but I was interested to read the facts of this tragic event. I remember the day of the Port Arthur Massacre clearly, almost 20 years on.
May those who lost their lives and pieces of their hearts that day find peace.
May Martin Bryant rot in hell.
May those who lost their lives and pieces of their hearts that day find peace.
May Martin Bryant rot in hell.
Read
May 14, 2011shocking and scary....
July 3, 2011
Very interesting to find out what really happend at Port Arthur.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews