6f453221
XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: Dev@null.net
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:16:04 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
wrote:
>"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.
not to mention modern Abrams tanks a totally computerized with remote
control weapons.
There are probably drone prototypes that don't even need a driver.
>
>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)
|
