Democratic Underground

[oneshooter]

So you can down an A/C with a bullet from a rifle. Just have them get low enough to spit on their windshield.

It's called by flyers as the "Golden BB". The one shot, in the right place, at the right time, that will ruin your whole day.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Jesse]

Selena, that German's bullet at least enabled them to get a good whiskey out of the deal. RAF had better whiskey and he thought they deserved it after the Battle of Britain. I think they would trade Ray Bans and boots for their whiskey.



Me as a gunner? You have a point. Remember, I practice trying to shove the muzzle through the bullseye.

[1911Tuner]

It's called by flyers as the "Golden BB". The one shot, in the right place, at the right time, that will ruin your whole day

Sure. Anything's possible, but to hear these flakes talk...unless all 50s are banned, aircraft will soon be raining from the sky. You know...like Bin Laden predicted following 9/11.

[LibShooter]

...but to hear these flakes talk...unless all 50s are banned, aircraft will soon be raining from the sky.

But by the same token, to say it's "impossible" to down an airliner with a .50 rings untrue and harms our credibility. Anyone who thinks about it knows a half inch hunk of lead could rip through thin aluminum and delicate machinery. That's why showing them shot up WW2 bombs limping along is counterproductive. It creates a concrete mental image. Arguments about the tiny risks might help, but probably not. This is one of those things on which you won't change anybody's mind.

[P5 Guy]

And that's what has been going on here. Building the impervious box. Put a cat and some poison in there and what do you get
Yes, a skilled and lucky shot can bring down an AirBus or will it? Yes, letting that carbon free will make us warmer or will the trees love us for it? Oh and is the cat dead from the spilled poison or is the the bottle still sealed and the cat purring?

[1911Tuner]

But by the same token, to say it's "impossible" to down an airliner with a .50 rings untrue and harms our credibility. Anyone who thinks about it knows a half inch hunk of lead could rip through thin aluminum and delicate machinery. That's why showing them shot up WW2 bombs limping along is counterproductive. It

And nobody said that it was impossible. I said that it was so highly improbable that it may as well be impossible. It's more likely that the plane will crash of its own accord. I said that even hitting the plane from the ground...even once...with a rifle...is so far off the scale that the chances are probably less than one in a hundred thousand. Given that modern airplanes are equipped with mechanical countermeasures to keep them airborne in the event that somebody does get lucky makes the idea of downing one with a rifle from the ground a pretty fanciful proposition. Truly the stuff of Walter Mitty-esque daydreams.

P51Ds attacks with no fewer than six machineguns firing at relatively close range sometimes failed to bring down what are now considered to be very primitive aircraft in comparison.

MY point is that the call to ban .50 caliber rifles based on the threat of terrorists shooting 747s out of the sky with them is silly. Yet...the Chicken Littles of the world continue to lap the Kool- Aid without even a clue as to how difficult it would be to hit a moving target under the existing conditions of airspeed...range...wind...target angle...rifle accuracy at that distance...and the limited skill of the shooter. I doubt seriously if Carlos Hathcock could do it in less than 10,000 attempts. It's hard enough to hit a stationary target with a Barret .50 at a range of one mile...much less a 600 mph target at five times that distance.

But, hey! The Kool-Aid is abundant and sweet. Drink ye therefore in copious amounts.

[Selena]

But by the same token, to say it's "impossible" to down an airliner with a .50 rings untrue and harms our credibility.

This is equivalent to banning the digging of cellars since such an act might concentrate fissionables in the bedrock and create a open air nuclear reaction. After all, it happened in Oklo so it must be able to happen anywhere!

Of course, anyone with even an elementary knowledge of nuke reactors knows why Oklo is a one in a billion event. Likewise anyone with an elementary knowledge of aircraft and firearms knows why the idea of shooting down an airliner with anything less than an "ack ack" gun is a one in a billion event. If people want to take the event on faith, I'm fine with that. But to restrict my rights in the name of that faith under color of law violates the separation of church and state.

[1911Tuner]

Selena! Word!

[LibShooter]

MY point is that the call to ban .50 caliber rifles based on the threat of terrorists shooting 747s out of the sky with them is silly.

Of course that's true. However, my point is that countering that sentiment with pictures of shot up bombers is counterproductive. To the uninformed those photos say, "See all the damage those bullets can cause."

Those who have never fired a rifle "know" hitting the intended target is easy. Heck, just last week on The Walking Dead a woman hit a guy in the head across hundreds of yards the first time she ever shot a rifle. An airliner is much bigger than a guy's head.

[Selena]

Those who have never fired a rifle "know" hitting the intended target is easy.

While that may be true, basing policy on what people have learned from Hollywood is a poor practice. Ignorance and arrogance is a poor basis for action. Perhaps the better action would be to study the deprogramming techniques used by those the return cult members back to productive society. We could start at the White House and work our way down.

[1911Tuner]

Of course that's true. However, my point is that countering that sentiment with pictures of shot up bombers is counterproductive. To the uninformed those photos say, "See all the damage those bullets can cause."

I hate to break the bad news, but the History and Military channels have been showing the footage and the images for years. My point is to call attention to that and explain that if a half-dozen machineguns collectively firing 50 rounds per second at 600-1,000 yards can fail to bring down ancient aircraft, there isn't much chance of a single round killing a modern airliner, even if it's ground-swatted as it lifts off.

An airliner is much bigger than a guy's head.

And an airliner at cruising altitude is much farther away than a hundred yards...and moving at an unknown speed. At typical altitudes, I can barely make out the plane, much less hope to hit it with one or two shots.

Factor in target angle, wind, mirage, intrinsic accuracy of the weapon, trajectory, and velocity loss at that range...and you've got a mission that's all but impossible to accomplish. Not even Chuck Norris could do it.

In layman's terms:

"Ain't gonna happ'n, Cap'n."

[kcshooter]

OK, wait a second here.

I was fully behind you, Tuner, until this:

Not even Chuck Norris could do it.

Blasphemy! If all Chuck Norris wanted to do was make a plane fall out of the sky, he'd use a sling shot.



Honestly, I don't know why this is being discussed on a forum such as this. I don't know why it even has to be explained in such detail. It's a ridiculous idea, held true only in the minds of the ridiculous.

[1911Tuner]

Honestly, I don't know why this is being discussed on a forum such as this. I don't know why it even has to be explained in such detail. It's a ridiculous idea, held true only in the minds of the ridiculous.

For real. I didn't even mention the amount of lead that would be required. At 600 mph ground speed, and the bullet's flight time to reach an altitude of 10,000 feet...which is pretty low for a commercial jet...you'd have to lead it by nearly a mile without a reference point to judge the lead by...just to get it to the plane's general vicinity.

[LibShooter]

And an airliner at cruising altitude is much farther away than a hundred yards...

But as I said... aircraft are lower and slower 20 seconds after leaving the ground.

But my overall point is that the argument against banning .50 rifles shouldn't be because you can't hit an airliner. Because...

A) It's not that impossible. At takeoff under the right conditions IMHO, it wouldn't be a whole lot harder than Lee Harvey Oswald's shot.

B) Even if you can't hit an airliner, the banners can always find some other evil a .50 would be great for. "If you can't hit a plane... how about a bus or a train?" You're not going to convince anybody it's impossible to hit a bus.

C) The correct reason not to ban a .50 rifle is that we shouldn't be banning guns.

[Selena]

But as I said... aircraft are lower and slower 20 seconds after leaving the ground.

Pin it Lib, take off speed for a 747 is something like 165 MPH. Are you going to say it's possible to get repeatable results to a vital system on the craft at that speed?

To paraphrase Stan Kowalski- I never met a Lib yet that didn't know if he was intelligent or not without being told, and there's some of them that give themselves credit for more than they've got.

[1911Tuner]

Take off speed for a 747 is something like 165 MPH. Are you going to say it's possible to get repeatable results to a vital system on the craft at that speed?

It's not just that. Modern aircraft...commercial and military...have so many redundant systems engineered to keep the plane in flight after suffering damage, that...unless the bullet killed one of the crew or passengers...the pilots probably wouldn't even know that anything had happened until the plane landed and the ground crew spotted the hole.

The whole notion of shooting down a 747 with a rifle is really pretty silly.

[LibShooter]

The whole notion of shooting down a 747 with a rifle is really pretty silly.

There are plenty of aircraft that takeoff at much lower speeds. Some common regional airliners rotate at less than 100 mph. If the shooter finds the right perch in line with the runway a couple of hundred yards from the end... it's not an impossible shot. And there aren't many places on a smaller plane that a 1/2 hole would go unnoticed.

Still, it would be a low percentage shot... but sometimes somebody gets a hole in one or hits the desperation full court basket at the buzzer.

Dismissing the fears of non-shooters out of hand won't fly. I read about a C-130 pilot hit in the helmet by small arms fire in Libya.

[Selena]

The whole notion of shooting down a 747 with a rifle is really pretty silly.

To misquote somebody- It's not what our liberal friends don't know that hurts them, it's what they do know that is wrong.

[Selena]

Dismissing the fears of non-shooters out of hand won't fly.

My training is medical not psychiatric. If you want to be considerate to their unreasonable and unfounded fears, that is up to you. However, dismissing idiots out of hand rather than trying to placate them saves onlookers from the indignity of wondering which is the fool and the temptation to sin by betting which is the bigger fool.

[bjland3]

I like the forum and I am interested in the topic.

[Jesse]

Back to the .50 caliber argument. Is shooting at airliners a problem in the first place?

[bruno2]

But as I said... aircraft are lower and slower 20 seconds after leaving the ground.

Well yeah, but , it isnt anywhere near as dangerous shooting them down from there. They will just set it back down or ditch it in the Hudson.

[bruno2]

hello

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like the forum and I am interested in the topic.

Welcome to our forum. Lets hear your take on it BJ.

[mort the blunt]

Paid my first visit ever to the Democratic Underground today. It seems as if the hate is mutual.

!INCOMING HIPPIE LIBERAL STATEMENT!

It is no surprise that we cannot fix national problems when we cannot be agreeable to each other even if our communications are infinitely trivial.

[Johnny Dollar]

Welcome to our forum. Lets hear your take on it BJ.

Second the motion. Welcome BJ!