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

OK, this is cheating lol:

 

Lots of cover here:

 

Earlier, I focused on engines, but that is hardly the only thing that keeps a plane in the air. Hydraulic lines, electrical/computer components, wiring harnesses, etc. are critical components, and the loss of any of those on final approach means the plane will likely crash.

In other words, the OP is

WRRRRONNNNG

...as usual.

 

I really don't know if these (people) making such idiotic claims are pathological liars or are simply idiotic, but either way, they are
WRRRRONNNNG
so often I have to wonder how there is anyone left who even wants to listen to their BS...except to mock their stupidity and/or lies, of course.

 

If your list has Sarah Palin on it, then YOU'RE an ignorant moron.

 

OMG! Just a bit sensitive, aren't you?

 

Are you asserting that Jesse Jackson (in the OP) is wrong? I'll agree to that. If you're asserting that I'm wrong, think again:

Jason Hanson, a former officer for the Central Intelligence Agency and the author of​ The Covert Guide to Concealed Carry​, responded:​

​

I just read the Jesse Jackson quote and quite frankly it’s laughable. It’s clear Rev. Jackson doesn’t know the first thing about rifles and guns in general. It’s like me making a comment about quilting (something I know absolutely nothing about.) With the type of rifle that James Holmes had it would be impossible to shoot down a plane. (Okay, nothing is impossible, but it would be as likely as aliens knocking on my front door tomorrow.) I’ve never heard of a rifle shooting down civilians plane outside of a war zone either.​

​

Chris Gahr, who assisted in aircraft investigations while in the U.S. Marine Corps, gave more technical detail in his answer, but drew the same conclusion:​

​

Jackson’s statement was uninformed and defies common sense. However, it may be a good Hollywood plot.​

Considerations in bringing down an airplane with a rifle as a national security threat:​

1. maximum effect range of the weapon fired vertically​

2. caliber of the rifle​

3. internal factors – quality and training of the shooter,number of rounds fired, weapon accuracy.​

4. external factors – wind, speed of the airplane, rain, amount of available light, distance from the airplane, and of course the most important element -Blind Luck.​

Is there a possibility that it could happen? Yes. But you would have a better chance of being hit by lightning WHILE winning the lottery than bringing down a commercial airliner with the weapons that Holmes carried.​

Michael Knox, a forensic science and criminology consultant in Jacksonville, Florida, who specializes in firearms, ballistics, shooting incidents, and crime scene reconstruction, refuted the media rhetoric surrounding different types of weapons, adding:​

​

​

​

Jesse Jackson’s comments could not be further from the truth…Although it would theoretically possible for one to stand at the end of a runway and fire rounds into an airplane that cause disabling damage to engines, controls, or hydraulic systems, the chances of shooting down an aircraft with small arms is extremely remote. The AR-15 is no more capable than any other firearm of shooting down a plane–less capable than most hunting rifles–so, Jesse Jackson’s claim would mean that all firearms are a threat to national security. Clearly, Jackson is reaching for gun control rhetoric and he would be well-served to do some research on firearms before making such absurd public statements.​

Major Fernando Molina of the U.S. Air Force has spent thousands of hours in planes both fighting and as an instructor. He contributed:​

I am not a gun expert, but I do know aircraft and what effects different threats to aircraft are.​

I can tell you with a degree of certainty that it is highly unlikely you would EVER shoot down an airplane, even a Cesna with any small caliber weapon such as a semi-automatic or assault weapon. In order to accomplish this with “small caliber weapons” such as these you would need to be standing on the ramp as it rolls past you, or on the end of the runway as it takes off toward you.​

I have seen many examples of attempts by varying classes of weapons, from small arms to surface to air missiles.​

​

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...m-that-assault-weapons-can-shoot-down-planes/​

 

I'm assuming Joe is on another "vacation" with David, and would want me to say the following:

It's hysterical to watch the idiots on the right who get so riled up about something they become totally nonsensical...as evidenced by the posting of this thread. Their fears and anxieties push them to conclusions only an immature two-year old would think is appropriate, as in this thread's argument that it is impossible for a plane to be shot down by an assault weapon, a ridiculous claim, of course, but not to the (people on the right) and their infantile reactions to common sense proposals made by the political party they despise.

It amuses me every single time, to watch as they repeatedly make claims that are so obviously false that the only logical conclusion is that they do so due to either a retarded ability to comprehend the World around them, or they are outright liars, and simply being devious bastards...or a combination of the above.

So which is it in the OP? Is the OP a symptom of chronic lying, or is it an inability to think straight when they get flustered? Or is it both? Either way, it's obvious to me that these (people) are the last people anyone should look to for serious answers to serious questions, and that is why I vote Democrat.

btw, today was Obama's first day at being President for the next FOUR MORE YEARS! Eat it, losers! LLLLLOOOOLLLLL

 

I tell you what, I'll handicap my position in several ways by limiting what can be included in a hypothetical exercise I've created to dare anyone to state the "Impossible!" claim again...because I enjoy proving it wrong so damn much:

1. Only assault weapons and ammunition that are currently legal.

2. Only public American airports mentioned in the following list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_the_United_States (note: list also contains military sites, which are to be excluded for this exercise).

3. Only large commercial jets.

4. Only one shooter per airport.

5. Each shooter assaults one jet only.

6. Each shooter must be capable of carrying both weapons and ammunition for at least ten miles. (Why? To weed out the weak lol)

7. Shooter must be a non-expert in the use of firearms.

8. Shooter limited to positions outside of airports.

Given those handicaps, is it impossible to succeed in causing any crashes?

Please, oh please say so! LLLLLOOOOOLLLLL

 

No one is saying it's IMPOSSIBLE, just very, very highly IMPROBABLE. Like the expert quoted above said, "

Is there a possibility that it could happen? Yes. But you would have a better chance of being hit by lightning WHILE winning the lottery than bringing down a commercial airliner with the weapons that Holmes carried".​

If Jesse Jackson is going around saying these so-called "assault weapons" could be used to bring down aircraft, like most liberals he's simply talking out of his ass.​

 

I've highlighted a keyword in your paragraph that proves a logical inconsistency. You claimed that it is not impossible, and he claimed that it COULD happen. If it is not impossible, it COULD happen. End.

 

Exactly. The thread title makes the claim:

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

That is obviously a misconception, a misstatement, but that is something the right is extremely prone to.

 

Ron Jeremy COULD be elected President of the World, but the probability of that happening is incalculable, in fact so improbable it could be claimed impossible. About as possible as Jesse Jackson's claim that assault rifles can take down aircraft. It makes more sense than any of your posts, however.

 

Choosing a porn actor for your example, trying to tell us something about yourself friend?
View attachment 1218

 

I would not say 'impossible' to much of anything in this world. But I also don't think you could take down a plane 1 in a 100 times either. (1%) 1 in 10,000 as was mentioned? More along the lines. But I still think that might be off by as much as a factor of 10 or even 100.

 

Agreed.

 

Well there is one way to do it but that means you have to be on the plane in the first place (good luck with that LOL)