and a gigantic .50 cal weapon can't do the same?
The CNN "news" team tried to put some significance to the .50 BMG by shooting it through a 1 inch steel plate, but that just makes them look ridiculous. How many commercial airlines are armored with 1 inch steel? Just think of the fuel expense.
I believe that was the point. Even with armour, the plane couldn't withstand a direct hit from a .50 cal rifle. It would punch threw the cabin or cockpit like they weren't even there.
and I know I couldn't take down a commercial airliner with a single shot.
a lot of people thought the towers couldn't be brought down by only one plane either.
a cheap and inaccurate RPG would be a hell of a lot more effective
only problem is that they are a lot harder to come by in the U.S. than a completely legal .50 cal rifle.
Plain and simple, for a rifle, any rifle, to take down a commercial airliner, it would have to hit the thing in a critical spot. To do so intentionally would require shooting skills beyond human ability
Not really. I've seen a man blow the heads of squirrels from about the same distance that one can get near a landing or ascending plane in some airports.
Now add in the very high speed movement of the plane, and the tremors from its engine noise, and you have no chance of hitting your target.
tell that to Oswald.
Sure, you could hit the plane, but the plane is not your target. You want to hit an area of the plane that contains components whose damage could bring the plane down, and that is a much much smaller target than I think you realize
Have you ever shot a moving passenger plane before? Then it is possible that shooting a plane with such a weapon would cause more damage than you realize.
First of all, the .50 BMG is hardly "gigantic". It's merely a scaled up 30-06. I have fired an M2 (the real Magilla), and, while they are big, they are hardly gigantic.
Secondly, yes, it is conceivably possible that a .50 bullet could hit a sensitive spot on an airplane. However, the odds of anyone actually managing to do so intentionally are so astronomically small that it's more likely that all the passengers simultaneously win the lottery. It's actually much more likely for all the passengers to be killed in a comet impact than for a terrorist with a .50 caliber rifle to intentionally take down the plane.
Making another useless law because there's an infinitesimally small chance a terrorist could use a .50 caliber rifle to take down a plane makes about as much sense as making a law against comets hitting the planet. Neither is actually going to happen, and the terrorists wouldn't obey the law any more than the comets regardless.
I believe that was the point. Even with armour, the plane couldn't withstand a direct hit from a .50 cal rifle. It would punch threw the cabin or cockpit like they weren't even there.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You still have to hit a distant small critical target that's moving very fast and which you can't see through the skin of the aircraft. If you don't hit the target, then it doesn't matter how powerfull the rifle is. As a matter of fact, a smaller rifle than the .50 would be more of a threat. The bullet from the .50 would punch straight through the fuselage, while a smaller round would enter and then bounce around or fragment, giving it a higher chance of actually doing serious damage.
You are also not taking into account the redundant nature of commercial aircraft (well, except for ones made by Airbus). Even if Allah is with the terrorists and they manage to hit the pilot (probably the most critical "component"), there's a reason why there's always a co-pilot on the stick at takeoff and landing.
> and I know I couldn't take down a commercial airliner with a single shot.
a lot of people thought the towers couldn't be brought down by only one plane either.
Irrelevant. And ignorant. A lot of "people" might not have thought that, but a lot of engineers and architects knew otherwise. They knew that the towers could withstand a commercial airline strike, which they did. They also knew they towers could not withstand a large fire, and so they designed them to collapse straight downwards (which they also did).
And that still doesn't make any case against the statistical impossibility of bringing down a commercial airplane with a .50 caliber rifle.
> a cheap and inaccurate RPG would be a hell of a lot more effective
only problem is that they are a lot harder to come by in the U.S. than a completely legal .50 cal rifle.
Wrongo. They are more difficult to aquire legally. Think of the tons of drugs that cross our borders every year. You don't think a single RPG could get through? More to the point, an RPG might actually have a chance at taking down an airplane, which is something a single shot .50 BMG simply doesn't have the real world capacity to do.
Also, your use of the term "completely legal" completely neglects to take into account the many thousands of "gun control" laws (not to mention market forces) around the sale of a .50 BMG rifle. You do not simply walk into a K-Mart and pick one up. They take months to order, you have to pay thousands of dollars up front, and thousands more on delivery. Finally, you still have to pass the "Brady Bill" background check before you get your hands on the rifle. As to "private sales", anyone who has gone through all that for their rifle, is not going to readily turn around and sell it cheap to someone off the street (and might still need to go through a waiting period and backgound check depending on the state).
> Plain and simple, for a rifle, any rifle, to take down a commercial airliner, it would have to hit the thing in a critical spot. To do so intentionally would require shooting skills beyond human ability
Not really. I've seen a man blow the heads of squirrels from about the same distance that one can get near a landing or ascending plane in some airports.
But that is not relevant. It is not the same target. I can guarantee the squirrel was not moving when he shot it. He also could see the squirrel's head, and didn't have a sheet of aluminum between them.
Again, you don't shoot much (if at all), do you?
If it were so easy to hit a moving aerial target with a rifle, then why do duck and goose hunters all use shotguns? A sensitive target on a commercial aircraft would be about the same size as a duck, but it is higher, hidden behind aluminum, and moving much faster.
> Now add in the very high speed movement of the plane, and the tremors from its engine noise, and you have no chance of hitting your target.
tell that to Oswald.
Do you mean Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, then again not the same thing at all. Kennedy's staff car was not nearly as fast, or as far away as a commercial airline. He could also see his target (which is why he was in the last presidential convertible). The book repository was not being shaken by a low flying jet engine. Additionally, Oswald did not use a .50 caliber rifle. He did manage to shoot Kennedy, but he did not in any way cause the car to crash.
Have you ever shot a moving passenger plane before? Then it is possible that shooting a plane with such a weapon would cause more damage than you realize.
I have not fired on a moving passenger plane. Neither have you. The whole statement is specious. I, however, actually have some knowledge and experience as to what would happen (which you have only been able to counter with hyperbole and fear). I have fired an M2 at a moving ground target (that was a fun day). It's a lot harder to do than you realize. The fully automatic (not to mention fully regulated, licenced, and taxed) M2 did trash the truck, but only after about half a belt was fed into it. A single shot certainly wouldn't have done much more than my .30 caliber rifle, and considering the first few shots missed, I can say that a single shot in the same circumstances wouldn't have done anything at all.
Back to the point of this whole thread: CNN did a fake news story about the .50 caliber rifle. They did not show any interviews with anyone who competitively shoots the rifle. Nor did they compare the effects of the rifle in their "demonstration" with any other firearm to show the actual relative power of the .50 BMG cartridge. They tried to make the completely spurious point that one of these rifles could be fired at an airplane, but did not mention the plain fact that actually bringing down a plane with one of these rifles is so difficult that it's beyond impossible.
All this is not surprising considering their intent is to have these weapons banned as an increment to the fascist liberal dream of total citizen disarmament. Just like all the lies spewed about "assault weapons", CNN is hoping they can frighten enough ignorant spineless cowardly chicken littles into supporting their irrational cause by trying to make the marks think that because something could conceivably happen in their liberal fantasy land (the same place where socialism works) that it could actually happen in the real world. They also think that it is right to punish law abiding citizens for what terrorists might do, instead of just punishing criminals for acts they actually commit (which is what a just and free society does).
And you, chronotrigger, fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.