So msharmony I never did see your answer to my earlier question asking for clarification on your statements on the first page of this thread.

Basically you said no one has a logical legal reason to have that kind of capability. I asked for you to define the capability that is logically legal as you put it, but you never did.

How can you with any certainty talk about a subject such as this, making statements about what should be legal or illegal and not define what you mean?

Arm yourselves.

However I want to take a moment to say something important. Right now with the media the way it is you wouldn't know this fact, but right now we live in a time where less violence exists than EVER before. In fact for that reason we see all of the misunderstanding of what it means to be armed and why having arms is important to the society and for the individual. Most people these days who live in first world countries will never experience serious harm at the hands of another. Fewer wars are waged and less people are killed in those wars than historically. Despite all of that as an individual anything can happen to you if you fail to prepare, or as I like to say . . walk softly but carry a lot of firepower.

Getting my concealed carry permit renewed tomorrow. Personal responsibility will help in these cases . . nothing else really can.

Your wrong, in most cities the permit for selling a beverage takes months to get and can cost more than it is worth. Heck one church got fined for giving away bottled water.

Not all cities/states are as bad in this regard. Regulations on such common things as milk and sugar and lemonade are ridiculous in the extreme and show that the government has shifted to a role of parent, or owner over us vs protecting our rights. If someone wants to drink raw milk they should be able to . . its dumb, insurance shouldn't have to pay for your stupidity, but you should be able to do it.

Regulation always starts with some kind of good intention. Oh what happens if the little girl selling lemonade doesn't wash her hands and you get salmonella, oh heavens we need to protect all of those people from themselves.

The loss of personal freedom is directly tied to a lack of personal responsibility and is fueled on good intentions.

Yes, the temps in the sun would not foster gold formation. To my knowledge all of available gold is due to supernova explosion not formation in the sun. I am no expert, but spectrum analysis shows no gold in the sun. It takes larger stars to supernova anyways and during that process is when the gold is formed. Anyone more knowledgeable feel free to add or correct me.

Central planners exist at all levels of government. Doesn't really matter where they enact there laws if they strip citizens of freedom without showing harm to another then they are doing exactly what we are describing and reject.

This is wide reaching.

Cant grow your own tabbaco.
Cant buy/sell lemonade.
Heck one lady is being evicted for having a garden.

You say move if you don't like it . . please, that is hardly an option for most Americans. The real answer is outlaw laws which do not meet the burden of harm, and place the burden of demonstrating harm on the folks who wish to bring charges, or bring complaint.

Millions of restrictive laws which require no harm at all for someone to be harmed through force by the government for the audacity of selling lemonade. Protectionists like msharmony are to blame.

All of the off topic posts should be deleted. I urge you to start a thread specifically on those topics.

Ok so we agree that the ramifications of self ownership is that laws which restrict such choices are really demonstrating a legal system which ignores our ownership of ourselves?

In the example given no deadly force was used. So your example is orange to the apples of the OP.

So far as you having to pay for it . . . that has more to do with removing the forced labor part of incarceration, really a different topic anyways . . .

No one agrees that a penalty that is disproportionate to the harm of the crime is justice . . . in fact justice means getting what you deserve which MEANS proportionality. You can disagree what is proportionate, but not what justice means.

sigh . . its so hard sometimes with some of you guys to even have a meaningful conversation because you pretend words can have any meanings you want.

No your not being specific enough, and you didn't answer my question.

You said and I quote: In context of this shooting that means you think a semi automatic pistol with between 7 - 19 rounds has no logical legal purpose. (I dont know the exact model he used thus the range)

Please explain to me this opinion. Please help me understand at what round count it goes from being a logical legal purpose to no logical legal purpose and WHY?

So why is it different when instead of a car its a kidney?

All criminal penalties should not be inequitable to the harm of the crime, otherwise calling it justice would not make sense. I am for justice.

All tactical situations start with a single shooter. Even in the military. Right now more than ever tactics have evolved to urban environments, so again . . . no you are wrong. Also, no supply ever existed without a demand. In a deadly encounter no demand ever existed without a need.

I imagine the weapon innovations you are talking about right now in light of these shooting is larger capacity magazines? Yes? no?

Being vague never helped anyone understand anything.

Your point here is pointless. Your point is you cant park your car somewhere you don't own . . . way to not deal with the topic.

Try again.

So if you own your car, can you dismantle it? Can you sell off its pieces? Can you put high octane gas in it even though it might be harmful? Heck can you put water in your own gas tank? Can you crash the car into a tree you own on your own property? Should you? Should government through force stop you from doing any of these things? Why?

It would be refreshing if you would stop dancing around some of the more challenging questions I ask you (in other threads) and deal with them honestly( heck take your time, I don't post these to get immediate responses, but your responses so far have been absurd or based on emotion only, not facts)

So do you own your body or not?

If you were right than weapon innovation would never have been needed at all.

The objective facts are what lead to the conclusions, opinions are not important. We can run a thousand tests in an objective environment and the results will show the story . . . its a good thing the military leaders don't ask your friends there opinions when developing tactics they take a scientific approach and run experiments to determine there battle field SOP. Same with police, same with anyone who takes these situations seriously. Good thing we don't rely on your gut feelings, they tend to be so far off as to be destructive.

It really is funny to me to see you double down with your nonsense instead of dealing in the actual facts of reality.

Right, you are confirming that because this does not effect you, you don't care.

Your caring does not change the fact that you cannot do as you please with your body.

msharmony your cognitive dissonance is showing, might want to tuck that in a bit.

It doesn't take a professional to realize that the capability of the weapon directly influences the outcome of the encounter. It really is simple logic that takes mental hoola hoops to ignore.

Your wrong is the plain and simple answer. Law enforcement officers are killed all the time when they run out of ammo and are caught reloading.

A common tactical situation occurs when the person attacking realizes he is getting return fire and takes cover. If only all such attackers were dumb enough to avoid cover stand still and let us shoot them in the face with a single well place shot.

As soon as that occurs the capabilities of the weapons being used directly impact the encounter.

No one who has any knowledge of any conflict at any time throughout history would claim otherwise.

Get educated.