Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government The Military United States News Your Rights Online

Machine Gun Fire From Military Helicopters Flying Over Downtown Miami 1130

Okian Warrior writes with word that, as of Monday evening, multiple police agencies and the military were "conducting training exercises over Miami and elsewhere in the county. The exercise includes military helicopters firing machine-gun blanks while flying over highways and buildings. This YouTube video shows helicopters strafing highways with blank rounds near the Adrian Arts center. There are reports of similar actions in Houston From the Houston article: 'if you see the helicopters or hear gunfire, it's only a drill.'" Note: this time, it's not in The Onion.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Machine Gun Fire From Military Helicopters Flying Over Downtown Miami

Comments Filter:
  • Re:This is why (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:02AM (#42725207)

    Yes, it is.

  • Re:Provoking (Score:2, Informative)

    by ByOhTek ( 1181381 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:03AM (#42725221) Journal

    Yes... because in all but a few cases, the weaponry they so desire to protect, is not terribly useful against the military, and is better suited for harassing/abusing minimally defended/hardened targets, like unarmed civilians in medium-large numbers or similarly armed civilians in small numbers.

  • Re:This is why (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:04AM (#42725223)

    You clearly know nothing about American history.
    Start reading the Federalist papers. Just a few pages at a time since it will be difficult for you to understand.

  • Re:Provoking (Score:5, Informative)

    by RoboRay ( 735839 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:11AM (#42725313)
    And defending themselves against other civilians. Firearms are the equalizer that allow the weak to protect themselves from the strong, or simply against the many. If you look at the documentation of incidents, legal gun-owners are almost never the... "abusers" as you put it.
  • Re:This is why (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:20AM (#42725441)

    An automatic weapon won't fire a blank without an attachment called a "BFA". If you fire real ammo with a BFA attached, you will have a very bad accident which will destroy the weapon and likely injure the person firing it, but likely not the person being aimed at (if any). At any rate, only one round will fire.

  • Re:Provoking (Score:5, Informative)

    by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:28AM (#42725529)

    If I buy a gun legally, then use it to protect my drughouse and in the course of that action kill someone. Will your statistics capture me as a legal gun owner?

    Since being a drug dealer in the first place makes owning a firearm illegal (yes, the background check for every sale by a gun dealer will catch that sort of thing, if you're a known criminal. and if you're not known, it's still illegal and can be used as an additional charge when they catch you - "lying on a Federal form" or some such), I'd say that that makes your case impossible, and the statistics won't make you a legal gun owner, they'll make you one of those guys who bought his gun illegally.

    Note that while it is possible to avoid the background check by buying a gun in a private sale, the law still doesn't recognize you as a "legal gun owner" if you're a criminal, and if the guy who sold you the gun knows this, HE is now a criminal as well....

  • Re:Provoking (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @10:36AM (#42725647) Homepage
    Problem is the well placed part. It is easier to place the shot when the helicopter is stationary but then it is probably shooting at you or will be shortly. If it is moving you had better be really fucking good at gauging speed and distance because you will need to account for a large amount of drop and lead the thing. To put this in perspective at 400 meters there is probably going to be about 2/3 to 1 meter of drop (rough estimate but good enough) for your bullet. Also at those distances wind starts to play an important role. I have been able to consistently make shots at that distance against pop cans but that was on a day perfect for long distance shooting, hot, high humidity, low barometric pressure, no wind using low drag bullets fired from a Russian ex sniper rifle with a good scope. Toss in some wind and questionable consistency bullets (non match grade) and best of luck having consistent shots.
  • Re:Provoking (Score:2, Informative)

    by P-niiice ( 1703362 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:16AM (#42726109)
    Actually, legal gun owners are the "abusers" in quite a few cases - it's just that there is a legal question about a lot of the incidents. Look at the shear number of shooting of unarmed people by legal gun users (mostly police, but civilians too).

    And that's why such wide availability of firearms is a problem....the legal owners. "Law abiding citizens" can get scared and kill as easily as any criminal. We just had on the news today. an old man had four men in a car pull into his driveway by mistake looking for their friends' house (a few doors away) - the old man pulled out a rifle and shot the driver in the head as they pulled back out of his driveway. Another law-abiding citizen who killed another innocent for who-knows-what reason. Georgia has a stand-your-ground law: I doubt it could be applied here but I also wouldn't be surprised if he got away with it.

    Of course we need guns to protect our homes. But accidental or unwarranted killings of unarmed people for bullshit reasons should be prosecuted as murder, whether by police or law-abiding citizens or criminals.
  • Re:This is why (Score:3, Informative)

    by jbo5112 ( 154963 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:22AM (#42726223)

    Too late, Obama has already taken aim at US citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan), holding them guilty and assassinating w/o trial. It just hasn't happened to a US citizen on US soil. Keep taking your blue pills if you want, but it doesn't change the truth.

  • Re:This is why (Score:4, Informative)

    by dcollins ( 135727 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @11:58AM (#42726785) Homepage

    So by pointing to the Militia Acts of 1792, you must agree that the scope of the militia is subject to definition by the Congress. Also you must agree that: (a) some people can be exempted from the militia, e.g., congressmen, stagecoach drivers, ferryboatmen; (b) mandatory twice-a-year-training by state officers can be a requirement; (c) the militia is directed by the state legislatures and subject federal control in times of war; and (d) those disobeying orders are subject to Court Martial.

    Finally and mostly importantly, the revised Militia Act of 1903 specifically does establish the National Guard as the recognized militia in the United States, and it has the exact same legal standing that the earlier Militia Acts had in prior years.


  • Re:Provoking (Score:4, Informative)

    by RearNakedChoke ( 1102093 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @01:59PM (#42728717)

    "Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits"

    As a former Airborne Rifle Squad Leader in the 82nd, and former Bradley Master Gunner in the 1st CAV, I can assure you that this hasn't been the case in the last 30 or more years.

    1. American tanks have an advantage in weapon range (commonly called standoff) over Infantry units. It's difficult to kill a tank if it can park and take potshots at you beyond your ability to effectively return fire.

    2. They each have a TTS (tank thermal sight) that can display images based on a single degree of temperature difference, and combat as an infantrymen has a tendency to dramatically raise body temperature so that you literally glow in their sights.

    3. The tank commander and gunner each have an independently operated sight, and the commander can shift and designate a new target while the gunner is still engaging the old target.

    4. They can travel easily over moderate (not pristine) terrain at speeds greater than 45 MPH.

    "Combined arms only works if... its combined... "

    Yes. That also applies to the infantry.

    So here's a thought. Go spend two or three hours walking around your local hardware store collecting the items you will need to kill (or at least render ineffective) an M1 Abrahms. Then figure out how you'll kill the other 100+ M1's that are right behind it.

    Good luck, pal.

    Nobody in their right mind would attack a tank head-on. The M1 has TERRIBLE fuel efficiency. It eats 1.7 gallons per mile, 10 gallons to start up and 10 gallons per hour idling. You attack the logistics of the tank - its supply convoys.

    100 abrams? The US is a big country, with thousands of cities. We don't have enough M1s to put 100 M1s in every city and every point of conflict. On major battle fronts, sure. But we're not talking about a war between nations, we're talking about civil war. And you'd be naive to think that every tank platoon, with families and friends are going to all fight for the same side.

The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.