6f453221   
   XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: sofala@aapt.net.au   
      
   "Dechucka"  wrote:   
   > "RD Sandman"  wrote:   
   > > "Dechucka"  wrote in   
   >   
   > >> snip   
   >   
   > >>>> inside a nice defensive   or back at base. You don't seriously think   
   > >>>> they will be out in the open without defenses   
   >   
   > >>> That depends on the tank.  If it develops trouble or not.   
   >   
   > >> Oh my god the scenarios keep changing   
   >   
   > > I didn't even change a scenario.  You are going insane.   
   >   
   > >> Once again the lone tank breaking down ,the crew getting out to kick   
   > >> the treads and ozarfart just happening to be there with his .22 pistol   
   > >> against a crew who just happened to forget their personal weapons or   
   > >> haven't got the 50mm manned is moronic   
   >   
   > > I didn't say Ozark could do it.  I gave no scenario where it could occur.   
   > > I only said you could stop a tank if you could kill its driver.  That is   
   > > true.  In some unique situation you may be able to do that.  That is also   
   > > true.   
   >   
   > killing the driver would not stop the tank as you will find that other crew   
   > members are capable of at least moving the vehicle, well that is how it used   
   > to be   
      
   Of course other crew members can drive the tank.   
      
   Only a third rate military would send tanks into battle without the   
   crew being capable of doing every one else's job.   
      
   What this thread highlights is the arrant stupidity of the gun freaks   
   and why it is so hard to reason with them when it comes to gun   
   control.   
      
   FFS Taking out tanks with .22s?   
      
   How old are these fantasising idiots.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)