Comments on: GunFacts Hasn’t Any (5) http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/ Always Correct, It's A Gift Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:37:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: JDFAR http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1078 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:50:01 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1078 What might that "lid" be? What might that “lid” be?

]]> by: JayF http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1076 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:48:47 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1076 A "lid," huh? How so? And if there is no problem because there is a "lid," where is the problem? A “lid,” huh? How so? And if there is no problem because there is a “lid,” where is the problem?

]]> by: Administrator http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1075 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:26:06 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1075 No, the real fact is that there's been a lid on .50 cal firearms. For good reason. No, the real fact is that there’s been a lid on .50 cal firearms. For good reason.

]]> by: JayF http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1074 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:10:13 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1074 The REAL fact that remains is that a bad guy HAS NOT used a .50 rifle to bring down a helo -- it's too darn hard. The REAL fact that remains is that a bad guy HAS NOT used a .50 rifle to bring down a helo — it’s too darn hard.

]]> by: Administrator http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1073 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:40:18 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1073 Mal raises the same tired point: a helo can be brought down by a birdstrike or FOD. But the fact remains--if a bad guy wants to bring down a helo, a .50 beats using a .22. Mal raises the same tired point: a helo can be brought down by a birdstrike or FOD. But the fact remains–if a bad guy wants to bring down a helo, a .50 beats using a .22.

]]> by: JayF http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1070 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:49:58 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1070 This whole debate seems to be missing a point. The unlikelyhood of a helo being "knocked out of the sky" with a .50 cal rifle has less to do with power than with actually being able to hit the target at all. There is probably a reason why helos have NOT been "knocked out of the sky" with a .50 cal rifle. This whole debate seems to be missing a point. The unlikelyhood of a helo being “knocked out of the sky” with a .50 cal rifle has less to do with power than with actually being able to hit the target at all.

There is probably a reason why helos have NOT been “knocked out of the sky” with a .50 cal rifle.

]]> by: Mal http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1069 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:25:55 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1069 *sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning... not. Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade "inclement weather". Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh... duh. The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional "dangers of .50-caliber rifles" arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there. *sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.

Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade “inclement weather”. Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh… duh.

The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.

]]> by: Mal http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1068 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:24:57 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1068 *sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning... not. Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade "inclement weather". Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh... duh. The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional "dangers of .50-caliber rifles" arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there. *sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.

Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade “inclement weather”. Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh… duh.

The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.

]]> by: Mal http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1067 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:23:41 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1067 *sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning... not. Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade "inclement weather". Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh... duh. The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional "dangers of .50-caliber rifles" arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there. *sniffs* I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.

Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223 round do the same? Sure. Could a 7.62mm round as well? Sure, and they have in the past. Could hail also do the trick? Yuppers. How about birds? Oh hell yeah. What about your standard high-grade “inclement weather”. Ayup. How about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating limits of an aircraft? Uh… duh.

The Gun Facts folks phrased their debunking poorly, and should indeed be taken to task for that. However, the fact remains that the pointless and emotional “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” arguments put forward by the gun-grabbers are just that - pointless and emtional, like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.

]]> by: Mal http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1066 Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:15:00 +0000 http://leftrudder.blogsome.com/2007/12/28/gunfacts-hasnt-any-5/#comment-1066 *sniffs* Ahh, I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning... not. Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223? Sure. Could a 20mm? Sure. Could a dedicated guy with a lot of magazines, a sure hand, and a 9mm pistol? Sure. Could a bird? Sure. Could hail? Sure. Could just about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating parameters of an aircraft bring it down? Of course. Gun Facts phrased their debunking poorly, but the point remains that all of the pointless and emotional hooplah about the "dangers of .50-caliber rifles" was just that - pointless and emotional. Kind of like most of the anti-rights arguments out there. *sniffs* Ahh, I love the smell of fear-mongering in the morning… not.

Could a .50-caliber round bring down a helicopter or other aircraft? Sure. Could a .223? Sure. Could a 20mm? Sure. Could a dedicated guy with a lot of magazines, a sure hand, and a 9mm pistol? Sure. Could a bird? Sure. Could hail? Sure. Could just about anything outside of the remarkably narrow operating parameters of an aircraft bring it down? Of course.

Gun Facts phrased their debunking poorly, but the point remains that all of the pointless and emotional hooplah about the “dangers of .50-caliber rifles” was just that - pointless and emotional. Kind of like most of the anti-rights arguments out there.

]]>