Danny Westneat: Gun Guy Packs Heat in Message

My teenage son went to this meeting because he’s interested in owning a gun and I suggested that he needs to participate in the broader community discussion about weapons issues. His comment was that he actually thought it made a lot of sense that the person in charge of advising on guns actually had experience with gun ownership!

Funny, he didn’t mention anything to me about shooting down aircraft though…

SSSL,
This has been a fascinating exercise for us, and the source of several dinner table debates. My son really enjoyed the meeting, and got a lesson in reporting and public response by reading Westneat’s article and all of the follow-up comments. When I asked him about anti-aircraft devices he groaned and said ‘I knew that was going to come back to haunt him.’

As he said, Pursley said some things were maybe not so well thought out, and Westneat twisted them out of context. For example, he explained that Pursley was making the point that the 2nd amendment doesn’t specify particular ‘arms’, thus it applies to a bb gun as well as it does to (exhibit large piece of ammo to audience) something that can shoot down an aircraft. He didn’t get the impression that Pursley was in any way suggesting that the audience could or should go out and try to purchase something like this.

I’m amused to find an 18 yr old with a GED has a better sense of public relations than two grown men. I no longer regret letting him drop out of school!

Craig Thompson: Oops, Craig. I actually do have some first-hand knowledge about what will and will not bring down an aircraft, and about the Barret system. And it’s not from gunsamerica.com.

The Barret M82 is a long range sniper/counter sniper tool. The manufacturer originally wanted to sell it as an “anti-materiel” weapon, meaning primarily for shooting large or armored vehicles, but we found in Desert Storm that a semi-automatic rifle was generally not a good fit for that application. The advantage for the US military is employing the .50 caliber cartridge in that platform is the great distance achieved. That being said, a couple things to consider:

–A sniper platform, even with the long range offered by the .50 caliber cartridge, it is not a feasible anti-aircraft system. The rifle is designed to be employed by a prone shooter on a flat surface with bi-pod legs steadying the barrel, or from a separate mount system when employed in smaller spaces where a prone shooter may not be feasible. In either mode, the weapon is not designed to make the shooter able to track and engage moving airborne targets. An aircraft would have to be at nearly a head-on angle, or hovering, for a shooter to be able to engage it accurately with such a rifle, assuming the elevation angle was not an issue…which with a heavy weapon like that it generally is. Its long range applications run more towards humans walking or running on the military side, and big game walking or running on the sporting side. These targets move across the shooters field of view much slower, relatively speaking, and are easier to track and engage accurately.

–People who talk about what it takes to bring down an aircraft generally only know what they’ve seen on TV, which is almost always wildly inaccurate because the truth would not make nearly as exciting of a TV show/movie. Punching a single hole in an aircraft, even one that’s a half-inch in diameter from a .50 caliber bullet, will not bring down even a pressurized aircraft, unless the shot is so amazingly lucky (for the shooter) it takes out the pilot and co-pilot, or in the case of a small aircraft, hits the pilot or is lucky enough to drive the bullet straight into the engine or turbine. Small bullet holes actually will not affect a large pressurized airliner much, as modern pressurization systems are designed to be able to compensate for small hull breeches like those that would result from bullet penetration. The movie vision of everyone and everything being sucked out of small holes is pure fantasy. Even a large section of the hull being torn off, while a hazard to anyone not belted-in, is not going to bring down the aircraft (see: Aloha Airlines Flight 243, April 28, 1988). Putting the plane into a steep dive when there is a pressure loss is a maneuver the pilot employs in order to get the plane down to an altitude where the oxygen level is safe for humans.

A rifle like this, employed, say around SeaTac, while able to pose a serious threat to the individual passengers and crew of the engaged aircraft, would be extremely unlikely (absent many simultaneously occurring unusual circumstances, and a whole lot of luck) to bring down an aircraft (unless you are counting coming back for an emergency landing “bringing down”…which I am not). And even though it is a semi-auto rifle, getting multiple follow-on shots on-target acurately, on a moving (flying) target (which you would need to do enough mechanical damage to disable a plane) is simply not relistic with that beast of a rifle. The recoil is ridiculous!

Lots of big game style hunting rifles will “shoot through the engine block”. This term when normally used in the media this example is meant to stir emotional reactions and fear in people. It’s a scare tactic. Many rifles will shoot through an engine block, depending on how big or small an engine block you choose to shoot at. Yes, .50-caliber rifle rounds will shoot through some portions of engines, even the blocks sometimes. However, to put this in perspective, so will many standard big-bore hunting rifles that no one ever associates with terrorists and wild criminals, used for shooting bear, moose, water buffalo, boars, etc… Also, when people talk about guns “so powerful and destructive” (Westneat’s words, not mine) what they rarely realize is that the destructive abilities they are talking about generally can only be accomplished with specialized API (Armor Piercing Incendiary) or explosive ammunition, neither of which is legal in Washington State.

And to be accurate, the Times author never said “semiautomatic” weapon. He made a deliberately vague comment about “guns so powerful and destructive, they could potentially bring down a jet from a mile and a half away.” Again, that’s a scare tactic comment written-in by what I suspect is not an objective or un-biased article author (but then again, it was not a news piece, it was in the opinions section). But the line implied some sort of anti-aircraft gun to deliberately scare people. And it’s inaccurate…big bore rifles are legal now. (after all, that moose ain’t gonna shoot himself!)

Now if you want to discuss the applications and abilities of the Barret’s grandfather: John Browning’s .50 caliber machinegun (US designation M2, still in service today), then we are talking about a gun that could bring down a low flying aircraft, but then that’s a whole other conversation.

But I reiterate: anyone who thinks the public can run out and buy anti-aircraft guns has lost their grip on reality (or is deliberately trying to scare people).

See you on the firing line!

“Punching a single hole in an aircraft, even one that’s a half-inch in diameter from a .50 caliber bullet, will not bring down even a pressurized aircraft, unless the shot is so amazingly lucky (for the shooter) it takes out the pilot and co-pilot,”

That’s what I was thinking.

“Crap…that bold face type thing gets me all the time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Yea, I thought you were yelling at me.

Carol, my hat’s off to your son and his critical thinking skills and application of them. Tell him to keep on exercising his brain.

@ South Seattle Cop – you’re right on the money. I have a feeling we’ve met several times. Do you have a military background? Hope to see you at the range and am glad they got the burst pipes fixed.

SSSL

South Seattle Cop, as a former trainer (GSE-11) for the US Army, I know of what I speak. You’re opinionated, certainly, but according to your logic, it’s okay to take potshots at planes since after all, if a .50 caliber slug can’t depressurize a cabin, or only a lucky shot could down one, then certainly you should be able to buy tags for 737s. Geez, why all the fuss about flashing lasers at jets approaching SeaTac? Guess it should just be considered a “sport” and the same behavior allowed with fire trucks.

Anyone who tries to justify using a Barrett – or an AK – for moose shooting is an idiot. Frankly, if I’m at a community center and some idiot shows up packing heat, I’ll escort the jerk out the door. So would a real police officer – not some anonymous poser.

My personal weapon of choice is a recoilless rifle, btw, but the government – damn them – just doesn’t want me to have a 3-inch anti-tank weapon. Ought to get Eyman on that one, eh?

Still, the question is what to do to decrease violence with guns in the city. All the mystery of life can leak out of a little hole. The notion that kids – and I had firearms as a kid – and firearms mix is odd, as children lack judgment. So do the parents who buy them guns.

If you want to learn how to use firearms responsibly, enlist. You will be taught not only how to use them, but when not to. You will be taught respect, a lesson learned if you have a grain of sense about you. A pistol, rifle, or shotgun is more than a toy that goes bang in the night, more than an object you hold to create the dual illusion of self-importance and safety. No firearm guarantees safety – only your brain can do that.

SSSL’s back!

SSSL’s only back temporarily.

Respectfully @ Craig Thompson – enlisting in the military isn’t the only way to learn about responsible firearm management. Wouldn’t you think that some, if not the majority of issues around gun violence, could be addressed if the USA invested more into the education system and helped broken families get on their feet ?

As Michael Moore pointed out in one of his over the top movies, nearly 70% of Canadian households have a firearm. That being the case, and assuming both my memory and the data is correct, how do you explain the difference in criminal firearm utilization? Could it be there’s a different cultural phenomenon at work? And, I’m not referring to culture in the sense of immigration differences……

SSSL