Here is my quote-
Basically all that can be said for widespread gun proliferation and the law of the jungle you suggest is that it would lead to mayhem. It means not only do you need to worry about people who may mean you harm, you need to worry about people who overreact or escalate relatively harmless situations.

Nothing about "constant shootouts" and "streets flooded with violence". Those are your words. Unfortunately for you mine are note sensational enough so you need to insert your own spin on what I said. And what I said is totally supportable.
widespread gun proliferation and the law of the jungle (in which I mean every man for himself i.e. carrying a gun to defend yourself) means not only do you need to worry about people who may mean you harm, you need to worry about people who overreact or escalate relatively harmless situations which is exactly the type of situation I posted.


No you are simply ignoring that which you don’t want to see. The case I posted is one of many . It exists only as an example of that which you said never happens. I will try to make it as simple as I can for you. The mentality you have that everyone should have a gun to protect themselves means there are going to have to be millions of guns in circulation legal or otherwise then there are millions available for people to get hold of legally or otherwise. Legal owners misuse them. They then become criminals who may not any longer be able to legally acquire them but by this time they have already done harm.
If there are millions of guns in circulation then there is more of a chance that someone doing something wrong can do it with a gun.

I posted this -
I don’t believe you need a licence to carry a concealed weapon in that state!
The website I looked at said you didn’t need one however I was wary of its veracity given it was an anti gun website citing what laws existed hence my usage of the term “I don’t believe you need a licence”. But I should have been more clear on my ambiguity in this case.
The concealed issue is a non issue in the case I posted anyway. That was your spin. There is no evidence the guy had it concealed as he shot from his car in which case he needed no licence to have it there and he may have even had a concealed carry licence. So you are going off half cocked as usual.

You already got it but as usual you don’t seem to read everything before going off.

Here it is again –

EricOKC brought in the concealed carry issue as usual to spin what I said. My original statement has now been reposted several times and again is above for your viewing pleasure.
You chimed in on the end of it to a response I made to him hence my confusion.


Well with the way actual quotes get fed back to you all arse up I feel it is necessary to keep the replies in context. Some people also need reminding of what they actually said.

It’s a cool pic. Its screams gun nut redneck. I am sure the guy thinks he looks really tough/cool/hard/hung or whatever a gun that size is supposed to make you look.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.