Gun Guys gaffe

I am so SICK of folks talking about how a .50 cal can down an airplane! I am an structural engineer for Boeing and trust me, a single .50 caliber round has only a slightly greater chance of downing an aircraft than a 30-06 does. Basically, they both need a lucky hit on something vital, and since commercial jetliners have triple redundancy on almost all systems, the chance for a single round to down a plane is very slim. A goose has a better chance.

No if a person were able to spit 50-200 .50 cal rounds at an aircraft, enough damage could be done to drop a plane, but last time I checked, mounted AA guns are illegal.

You're preaching to the choir, Mad.

But don't stop.

?????????
"A weapon designed to shoot down civilian aircraft"

Do these idiots realize when muzzle loaders were designed there were no aircraft, civilian or otherwise. When are they going to attempt to sell the Brooklyn bridge? And do they plan to sell it by the foot or by the pound?

David, that's not a gaffe. A gaffe is unintentional. The fact that they have no provision for comments or response tells you they know they are lying, and that they dare not debate the veracity of their post, or their character, for that matter.

I am an structural engineer for Boeing and trust me, a single .50 caliber round has only a slightly greater chance of downing an aircraft than a 30-06 does.

Another way to look at it is that a typical round for anti-aircraft guns is 25mm (~1.00 caliber), and they generally have at least two guns firing simultaneously.

Another way to look at it is, when the .50 BMG was initially used against aircraft, it took many thousands of rounds per downed aircraft.

In the early 90s the ira in Northern Ireland used a .50 rifle to kill around 15 police officers and soldiers. Fortunatly since 9/11 they are now looked on a terrorists and not freedom fighters or whatever. The country that supplied the most money and support and the guns ultimatly seems to have slipped my mind.

Stevie,
While I kind of agree that the Provos are terrorists they actually have valid grievances. Why don't you stand in a Catholic area and wear green during marching season and then tell e how wrong the IRA is.

The IRA who wre exclusively Freedom Fighters, were actually a guerilla army and not terrorists, but then they achieved most of their goals with reservations in the 1920's and fully in 1949.

Gregg,
While I kind of agree that Al Quida are terrorists they actually have valid........

I think you mean stand in a catholic area and wear orange.

The Al Quida who were exclusivly freedom fighters, were actually.........

Hoping you can see out of the green tinted spectacles now.

I can't wait for the YouTube video where somebody tries to rob a 7-Eleven using a musket.

Will somebody please pass the duct tape? I need to wrap it around my head so it doesn't explode. Man, what a steaming crock of freshly-minted horse dung!

"Gun Guys" my left foot.

Notice how they don't have any provisions for comments on their "blog" or for sending them an e-mail? They know they will instantly be called out by thousands of people for their blatant lies and distortions. Man, that is so annoying.

Oh yeah, then there's this little snip of hyperventilation:

"He also had a scope for his sniper rifle mind you."

Oh NO!! Not a ... a ... SCOPE! Dear Lord, save us from "scopes"!! Why, only baby-killing, psycopathic, murderous, rampaging SNIPERS need scopes!

Oops! Just found their e-mail addy: [email protected].

Let's all send them a few little love notes - let `em know our true feelings for them.

I found that email and sent them something last night...

Since we don't know if it's a modern black-powder gun or an antique, we can't know for sure that it was designed before airplanes. But it sure as heck doesn't fire the 0.50 BMG, and it is incredibly hard to have the 10,000-13,000 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle.

The best inline muzzleloaders made with modern materials work out to around 2500ft-lbs of impact energy at the muzzle. Definitely in the realm of high-power (albeit for short distances) but nowhere near the supposed lethality of the unearthy, plane-killing raw potential of the .50BMG.

The whole screed is funny when you see they've given you the truth to counter their own lies and deception. You'd figure they'd want to bury their facts. Plus, I found their assertion of a .50 being able to rip bodies apart to be false in another news story where a NY police officer was shot with one and her vest stopped it.

I hope and pray that someone at a "Ban the 50" hearing cites this article. I will have a field day.

Great numbers, Matt.

I got the 10,000-13,000 ft-lbs energy number from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG

I'm assuming that the Wikipedians didn't pull that number out of thin air.

Here's an ex-con allegedly bi polar pointing his weapon at police. It was probably a front stuffer, those can be bought with a lot less paperwork and stuff than conventional firearms. All thats missing from that story is the part where he leads the officers on a merry chase, sparks coming off the rims, wrecks the stolen vehicle, runs out into the woods and ends up in a tree with police dogs pointing and barking!

I sent them an email about this, I thought it was polite while being honest:

This is one of the reasons there's so much tension between gun owners and the media. Headlines that simply aren't accurate. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I am a gun owner and supporter of Second Amendment rights, but I do think this needs to be addressed. If you read the article from the news site that you cited in your article you will see this line:

"Jessica says they told police Casey had no black powder for the muzzle loader, but police say they can't take that chance."

In your article you site that this is a "sniper rifle" and it is used to "shoot down aircraft." I own muzzleloaders and have hunted with them most of my life. They simply aren't much good past 100 yards. Civil war weapons were 50 caliber muzzle loaders, 50 cal sniper rifles are different.

Next you cite "criminal uses of 50 cal sniper rifles." No offense but have you actually read the page? Not one criminal USED a 50 cal sniper rifle except one man who started a fire. They owned them yes, but were not used in a crime.

This is one of the few articles on your site I've read but its content isn't factually based or supported to be blunt. I'm sure you get plenty of hate emails and such and I truly am sorry for the most of us gun owners that aren't that way but are given the reputation by others. You certainly have the right for your own opinion and I would defend that right whether I agreed with it or not.

Thank you and please feel free to respond I would love to hear your side,
Russ Johnson

I stumbled across the FBI table linked below. It shows the type and caliber of every firearm that killed a LEO during the last 10 years. There isn't one instance involving a .50 caliber rifle.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/table33.html

Those Gun Guys suck hot Muslim ass.

The Gun Guys are on the side of evil.

Does this mean my .54 is designed to shoot down satellites?

Please Kent don't aim at the moon.

Folks, this guy "Mike Magnum" of gunguys.com is not the media. His real name is Mark Karlin. He also runs Buzzflash.com, and gets revolting amounts of money from the Joyce Foundation for his "public relations" firm in Illinois. His site is part of the Freedom States Alliance.
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2006/03/heres-something-else-interesting-about.html

He's a disgusting, lying pig, and nothing you write him will change his mind. He loves the attention. He's a troll.

I would not even recommend hitting the site. I would not be one bit surprised if the amount of money the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation gives him is based at least partly on the number if "hits" that his site gets.

Nicki is right in that trying to change his mind his mind is a waste of time. He may not even believe the posts that he writes. In my opinion, he is just another paid shill.