~ Rogue ~ Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 I see...legally it makes enough sense, though I don't see how it makes sense to shoot only to kill. If I shoot someone, I'm going to shoot to kill. Two to the chest. One to the head. It's just ... good business. If he's dead, I have less worry about a civil suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+shift. MVC Posted April 2, 2009 MVC Share Posted April 2, 2009 What about legal suit from his/her family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted April 2, 2009 Author Share Posted April 2, 2009 What about legal suit from his/her family? There's a better chance of fighting that, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzymath Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I've decimated your reply but I wanted to reply specifically to these two things.#1: What your boss doesn't know won't hurt them. That is why I carry my Glock on my ankle. I wear pants at work. Restricted or not. #2: Ankle holsters solve the problem. I haven't thought of that, but I'd still be worried about it. If I get caught with something like that, it's not only a legal issue. It's a 'I might lose my job' issue. As well as a 'I might lose my insurance license and have to find another career field' issue.Life in Alaska, which no license is required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed, was so much easier than here in Washington. The state government is so damn borderline socialist and oppressive of any 'conservative' view points - like gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted April 2, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted April 2, 2009 What about legal suit from his/her family? I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diffused Mind Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This is exactly why I have problems with people carrying guns. If strangers are allowed to kill just because they feel threatened, then that's ridiculous. Let's have some common sense and not always be paranoid. That's why you don't threaten people. By using YOUR common sense you can avoid getting in a situation with almost anyone. Do you actually know anybody who owns a gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted April 5, 2009 MVC Share Posted April 5, 2009 Thread cleaned Please remember to stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antsy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I believe the general public should be as well armed as our military So you think everybody should be allowed to carry machine guns and grenades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gasdfdasfa31231as Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So you think everybody should be allowed to carry machine guns and grenades? Don't forget the AT rockets and AP Mines, have to kill all those evil commie Brits :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ Rogue ~ Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 So you think everybody should be allowed to carry machine guns and grenades? I've been absent from these forums due to unavoidable RL complications so sorry for my late reply. As to your question, the simple answer is yes. Yes I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antsy Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I've been absent from these forums due to unavoidable RL complications so sorry for my late reply. As to your question, the simple answer is yes. Yes I do. So anti tank missiles, dirty bombs and nukes are ok to carry when I'm walking my retriever, I wouldn't mind some of them I'm ****ing crazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts