The difference between a laser and a rifle is obvious. Tracking a moving target with a point of light is child's play against hitting it with a rifle. You seem to be fond of the .50 as an example. Have you shot it? I have, and it's not a superweapon; It's just a rifle. Without computers and radar, it would be impossible to hit a jet aircraft except at close range.
If you would like an exercise to simulate this feat, hire the best sniper you can find to shoot down some high-flying geese! (Good luck)
Please limit your speculation about firearms -- We have enough hysteria in circulation . . .
Fair enough...I will limit my speculation on firearms.
Tracking a moving target with a point of light is child's play against hitting it with a rifle.
However, I cannot agree your assertion that tracking the cockpit of a plane with a point of light is childs play. Like I said before, the target we're talking about is smaller (either the pilot's eye...or depending on the angle of incidence, possibly the whole window) than the plane itself, and it's still moving.
Flashing near the window, or flashing across it instantaneously doesn't tell us that there's a systematic susceptibility to lasers. The least common denominator...the most likely scenario...is that a few pranksters got lucky.
Before we go and join in the media frenzy on lasers, perhaps you should go out and tag that goose, too. I will back down and not speculate on firearms, but likewise I would hope that the group as a whole would back off on "laser tracking." The media's doing a fine enough job blowing it out of proportion.