Ignorant (Of Course) Jesse Jackson Thinks Assault Weapons Can Shoot Down Planes

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CoinOKC, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC T R U M P 2 0 2 4

  2. Stujoe

    Stujoe Well-Known Member

    I have heard of guys sitting on their body armor during take off and landings but I never gave any thought to small arms fire taking the whole plane down.

    I suppose it could happen but it seems highly unlikely unless their was a lot of lead flying from many shooters or a 1 in a million shot (say into the engine) from a lone shooter pretty much standing on the runway. Or a magic bullet, ricochet that takes out both the pilot and co-pilot. ;) I doubt even a shot to the fuel tanks would be enough.
     
    2 people like this.
  3. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

    Jackson always makes gaffes like that, he is the left's equivalent to Rush Limburger, no surprise there. Like Stujoe said, anything could happen, just like I could take down a plane with a green laser, doesn't mean it's easy to do or would happen once every 9,000,000,000,000 tries. Besides shooting at planes, think about the obvious consequences of unloading a live round at such a trajectory at a moving target so far away, that round is going to shatter a window or hit something, so it is a general safety hazard, though not of great concern.
     
    2 people like this.
  4. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    A few years ago I visited the Mall of America in Minneapolis. While the family tried to spur the economy with their pennies, I sat outside on the parking deck and watched flights come in (screw the economy!), one every five or so minutes. The planes were close enough for me to say that yes, I could have put a lot of bullets into those planes from my vantage point, but I seriously doubt anything I hit would have sustained enough damage to cause a crash...but it's not altogether impossible either. Concentrating fire on an engine very well could cause mechanical issues with that engine. Losing an engine during takeoff or landing doesn't give the pilots much time to compensate.

    Odds of success? It depends on the skill of the shooter really...consistently hit that engine for the few seconds it's in range and you have maybe a 1% chance of causing a crash. You also have 100% chance of police pointing guns at you shortly afterward. Keep that in mind lol
     
  5. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

    I'll stick with my green laser.
     
    3 people like this.
  6. Stujoe

    Stujoe Well-Known Member


    I think you'd have to be awfully good and really quick. ;) It is very tough to judge the landing speed of a big passenger aircraft. It may look like it is landing at 15 miles an hour but more likely it is 150 miles per hour or more.

    I think of a C17 (cargo plane) which I have literally been under as it lands a stones throw away. It almost looks like it is stopped because it is so huge. But it is probably still 100 mph or more. I think the actual speed is classified. But that is a plane that can land on really, really short runways.

    And then, even with an (illegally modified) fully automatic, good luck hitting near the same spot twice on an object the size of an engine even with luck.

    Like they said on Seinfeld about how each proctologist story ends (in the Assman episode): 'It was a million to one shot, doc, million to one.'
     
    4 people like this.
  7. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

    I've been shooting at this gray fox on my property every morning, he's about 800 yards away, up a hill with a steep incline from my back porch. Even at that relatively short distance he hears the blast and can move before the bullet lands, and measuring the arc-drop at that distance and elevation is extremely difficult, I measured 18 clicks high and 14 west (Coriolis) this morning and missed by about 1/2 foot high. Think about that, I'm shooting at a relatively fixed target at that distance and not a great elevation and I've been at it for 4 days, and I am a highly experienced shooter (230/250). What are the chances of hitting, say a 747, which travels M .85 above 18,000ft (670 mph approx.) and 130 kts (150 mph approx.) at takeoff and landing with a sloping trajectory. Your chances of hitting an object moving at M .85 at 18,000ft is 0% (It is impossible, given the distance and the effect gravity would have on the bullet), your chances of hitting an object moving 130kts at 2400ft (800 yds) is well, x < .01%
     
    3 people like this.
  8. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    It's about 140 mph for any large passenger jet. Anything under 130 will cause the craft to stall. As for judging the speed, I didn't mention it but yes, they look like they are going much slower than that, and I factored it in.

    But, any experienced hunter/shooter knows how to lead a target, or should anyway. I'm giving a rough estimate (VERY rough) of about 50 to 70 feet lead to hit the target from the vantage point I had, depending on the velocity of the round, of course. In my example, I've assumed I'd have that lead dialed in by the second jet lol

    A disturbing point: Security was virtually non-existent on that deck. This was some time prior to 9-11, but even back then I wondered why security seemed so lax.

    I had a parking space on a close corner to the runway, a space which was tucked away a bit, giving pretty good cover from the rest of the deck. There were no cameras in sight (though that doesn't necessarily mean much), and there were virtually no one else around (I saw maybe three or four people in an hour or so, including cars going by). I could have sat there for an easy 15 minutes, half an hour even, with a suppressor, and sent thousands of rounds at several planes as they landed...all without anyone really noticing. It would have taken quite some time for the grounds-people at the airport to confirm any bullet holes, and longer still to home in on where my vantage point was.

    Granted, suppressors don't cease ALL noise, but there are ways to muffle the sound further (which I won't mention). The point being that yeah, I could have driven to that corner with a car full of weapons and ammo, etc. and done some serious damage if I was so inclined. Scary thought, really.

    Eh, I never intend to be on a plane anyway lol
     
  9. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    I gave a 1% success rate based on a few things:

    The first is that the planes were all landing, and followed the same flight path, meaning some preliminary calculations were possible as to trajectory of the rounds as well as for lead. As I mentioned earlier, an engine failing at takeoff or landing is much more difficult for a pilot to compensate for and engine failure during landing was the deciding factor in the 1% figure. How accurate is it? I don't want to know.

    My estimate (rough as it is) is more an indication of how unlikely it is for a bullet to cause that engine failure but remember...those things are complicated pieces of machinery...and they are built by the lowest bidder lol

    Another point is weapon/ammo. I'm assuming I'd have had one that is high powered, lightweight, accurate, etc. that can send at least one or two rounds per second, preferably a bit more, but accuracy suffers too much from the increased rate.

    I'm not a good judge of distance, but yeah, I'd say the jets were landing out of range for most weapons to hit with ANY accuracy. That said, I'd have had an easy five seconds on the target within some rifle's capabilities.

    Difficult? Hell yeah lol...but not altogether impossible. The only reason I even bother to go through this exercise is to make that point, that it isn't impossible, just highly improbable lol
     
  10. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    One other thing to remember folks...there are many many runways that allow for close-up viewing of flights taking off and landing. Some as close as a couple hundred feet.

    At that distance, no one is going to hear the shots over the engines.
     
  11. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    Eh, I don't really need to prove my case, all I need to do is to show people that the OP is wrong ;)...which is like proving gravity exists, or that Oprah enjoys a rib sandwich, or that Fat Albert was a horrible role model for young people.

    With that said, I'm satisfied that I've made my point that the op is
    WRRRRRRRONG :D
     
    2 people like this.
  12. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    My rough calculation (jet at 2600 feet flying 150 MPH and the gun with 1500 FPS muzzle velocity) says you must lead by 381 feet - and that is not counting how much the bullet will slow down on its trip. I don't know exactly where you were, but the center of the mall is a bit over 1.6 miles from touchdown. Anyhow, good luck.
     
    3 people like this.
  13. clembo

    clembo Well-Known Member

    Sarah Palin could do it.:D
     
    3 people like this.
  14. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

  15. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC T R U M P 2 0 2 4

    She's a great woman, but not THAT great!
     
  16. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

    No, she's not a great woman. When I hear "great woman" I think of Amelia Earhart and Sandra Day O'Connor, among others, but Sarah Palin is nowhere near that list.
     
  17. rlm's cents
    Hot

    rlm's cents Well-Known Member

    And that would be your list. I suspect others would have a different list.
     
  18. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    Easy "target":[​IMG]
     
  19. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    Bigger "target":[​IMG]
     
  20. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    A "target" as it approaches:[​IMG]
     

Share This Page