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.
Then stand in front of one while I try to hit you with it. Then tell me if it is big enough.
A lot of "people" might not have thought that, but a lot of engineers and architects knew otherwise.
So many that they all rushed to fix the problem...hmmm.
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.
How do you know that? How many times has a U.S. commercial aircraft been hit by one?
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.
But yet, for years many people thought that it was impossible for Oswald to have pulled it off. That's why they made up the grassy knoll people. The point is, even though something may seem impossible, you don't really know if it is until someone tries it-often ending in tragedy.
He did manage to shoot Kennedy, but he did not in any way cause the car to crash.
1)he wasn't aiming for the car.
2)Even if the car had crashed, it would have it no way compared to the damage that a crashing plane will cause.
If it were so easy to hit a moving aerial target with a rifle, then why do duck and goose hunters all use shotguns?
Because a duck is less than 100th the mass and size of a commercial aircraft. A plane is just a tiny bit more of a target. You must not fly much.
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).
Don't give me that crap. You just admitted that you have never fired on an aircraft; therefore, it is impossible for you to be dishing this nonsense about it being impossible to hit a plane with a .50 BMG when you have absolutely zero clue as to what would actually happen if a plane were hit by one or more rounds from it. All you can respond with is 1984 style brainwashing and Internet talking points.
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, licensed, and taxed) M2 did trash the truck, but only after about half a belt was fed into it.
Look son, let me educate you a little bit on the differences between a car and a large passenger aircraft. First, if a car is taken out, then only a few people are hurt or killed. If an aircraft is taken out, it crashes violently-probalby killing everyone (100s probably). Secondly, a Boeing 747, 767, ect., is a much larger target than a car. Thirdly, it is more vulnerable upon takeoff and landing than you think, it's not like it's exactly moving a Mach speed. And considering that a 767, etc., isn't built like a flying fortress, then it's not likely to be able to take a tremendous amount of fire. Lastly, even if only 10% of the people on a 747 are hurt or killed, then that's several times the damage that a typical car crash causes.
the plain fact that actually bringing down a plane with one of these rifles is so difficult that it's beyond impossible.
like talking to a rock.
And you, chronotrigger, fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker.
Not really, I consider myself to a pretty rational and open-minded person. Afterall, I have listened to your arguments, haven't I.
I'm no fan of CNN, but even I realize that another point to this story was that airport security is extremely lacking. If not a .50 BMG, then maybe something else.
their intent is to have these weapons banned as an increment to the fascist liberal dream of total citizen disarmament
CNN didn't do such an evil thing by broadcasting this piece-if it were really anti-gun, then it sucked at it's message. If they really wanted to wage a "ban gun" campaign, then they could have done a lot more than this little story.