GUNS GUNS GERNS

[Sava]

If money were no object, I would get an FNP90.

[Lancer]

What, do you have a Money Tree in the backyard?

Nah, not so spendy here.

[Lonestar]

Question: When laser guns or rail guns... or whatever is going to come next in terms of man-portable weaponry... will civilians get to own one? Should they be allowed to own them?

Why not?

The problem is one of expense. I mean, one of the reasons why it's so hard to justify banning semiautomatic longarms is that they are expensive and BY FAR murders happen with cheapo handguns instead of $1000 AR-15s with moar railz and doodads on it.

I figure that even if railguns or lasers become practical, they'll be absurdly expensive for a long time. Like that Tracking Point set up. Who the hell is gonna drop $25k on a computer-guided gun and then go on a killing spree with it?

I can only imagine future guns will be powerful and accurate enough to take down an airliner.

Yeah, and if you own a Barret .50BMG, you could do something similar. The problem is, again, expense. The fort of person who buys a $10,000 anti-material rifle that costs $5 a round isn't going to camp out at a airport and maybe hit the cockpit or jet engine of a airliner. He'd need to practice like you wouldn't believe in order to pull it off, and I'd like to see a range that has a part where you can practice shooting at airliners landing and taking off from several hundred(often a couple thousand) meters away.

Use of MANPADS is far more common, despite .50BMG guns being far more common.

This whole "right to bear arms" thing is a hilariously childish notion being used to protect what is basically a hobby for idiotic, anti-social man-children. It's all fun and games while dozens of children get mowed down every other week.

Mostly with cheapo handguns and in urban areas. "Ban the things"(more often "ban the SCARY LOOKING things") is a copout that ignores the economic and societal problems of our urban areas.

Hell, Puerto Rican is a island with the most stringent gun control in the nation, and it has a runaway homicide rate that sails past any of the States. Because poverty and lack of upward mobility is the problem, not guns.

But will we still put up with the gun lobby once airliners start getting shot out of the sky?

They aren't being shot out of the sky now though, even in states where .50BMG rifles and similar are legal.

Overseas MANPADS are often used for that, despite .50BMG guns being much more freely available. Ultimately, it takes a lot of freakin' work to take out a airliner with anything other than a missile.

If money were no object, I would get an FNP90.

Both of you are tactiqueers

[The Mad Monk]

Aww, now you've gone and hurt my feelings.

[regexcellent]

If you shot an airliner with a .50 you would be extraordinarily unlikely to bring it down, in fact I doubt it's possible. Every airliner in the world has at least two engines and redundant fuel/hydraulic lines. Most places you could shoot it would just pass harmlessly through the aircraft. You'd have to hit the aircraft multiple times, e.g. at least once per engine to bring it down. That's a really hard shot to pull off individually, let alone multiple times. Then there's the fact that jet engines are actually pretty durable; from combat experience with jet fighters in Korea, for instance, jet engines took a lot more hits to disable than piston engines.

Also, P90s are stupid guns with stupid expensive moon ammo.

[Lonestar]

If you shot an airliner with a .50 you would be extraordinarily unlikely to bring it down, in fact I doubt it's possible. Every airliner in the world has at least two engines and redundant fuel/hydraulic lines.

Hit a turboprop one.

As long as we're making up scenarios have another guy be on the other side to hit the other engine.

Or, you know, kill the pilots in the cockpit. That was the actual reasoning behind banning it in Cali.

[Sava]

Firing a gun inside a plane (a pistol round) is enough of a danger that could result in an explosive decompression... possibly leading to a larger structural failure.

A .50 caliber round fired from outside could quite conceivably cause two massive holes... and bring down the plane.

And that's assuming the round strikes the main structure and not a wing (filled with fuel).

Also, today's modern airliners have just about nothing in common with Korean War era fighters... aside from the fact that they are both things that fly.

Reg, your idiocy never ceases to amaze me.

[DinoDoc]

Firing a gun inside a plane (a pistol round) is enough of a danger that could result in an explosive decompression... possibly leading to a larger structural failure.

You watch too many movies.

[Hauldren Collider]

It would take way more than a tiny hole in the cabin to bring down an airplane. The pressure gradient is not that big, not even close. The plane isn't even perfectly airtight. It has to use pumps to maintain the air pressure because of leaks.

Airplanes can actually take a lot of punishment and still stay in the sky.

[The Mad Monk]

[Hauldren Collider]

My dad actually knows from experience that even things like engine failures on airplanes are quite survivable, and has a couple scars to prove it.

[pchang]

Decompression requires the plane to be at altitude. There is no way a guy on the ground is going to be able to hit an airliner at 20,000ft.+ with a .50BMG. Haven't you guys ever seen the frozen chicken jet engine tests?

[Colon™]

That could have been a perfectly good meal.

[regexcellent]

Hit a turboprop one.

As long as we're making up scenarios have another guy be on the other side to hit the other engine.

Or, you know, kill the pilots in the cockpit. That was the actual reasoning behind banning it in Cali.

You'd have to be a ****ing amazing shot to do this.

Firing a gun inside a plane (a pistol round) is enough of a danger that could result in an explosive decompression... possibly leading to a larger structural failure.

No, as has been stated, this will not happen. For two reasons: firstly, because in order for there to be a pressure difference that is meaningful, the plane would have to be at an altitude WELL above that which a .50 cal round could hit it, and second, because losing cabin pressure just means everyone has to put on oxygen masks.

[Felch]

If .50 BMG are so effective at bringing down jets, then why don't any militaries use them as such?

20 mm autocannons are on the small side for AAA. Nobody in their right mind is going to use a 12.7 mm semi-auto rifle for that sort of work.