They are meant as a deterrent, however the deterrent does not stop people who feel that the threat/risk of being caught is either less than the chance of success, or those who simply don't care because they never bothered to work out an exit strategy.

Guess what. The guys who never bothered learning how to land an aircraft never planned on landing it. Many of these folks plan on dying in their attempt. The minute they are confronted with equal force, they off themselves, and we are supposed to disarm? Please. Don't talk about being clever. I think you have no idea about the definition of the word.

And who protects you from them? The watchers need watching.

Shall not be infringed.

Except guns are not death rays. Go ahead, face 3-5 attackers who are both moving, and trying to kill you. That's NEVER happened, right? The police have no obligation to protect you. They are not responsible for your safety, and, frankly, when the situation calls for it, you will be in the exact same position they are when an attacker wants you harmed, except you'd prefer to believe that lying still will make him hurt you less.

Screw that. Molon Labe, and stand back.

And yet knives are just as, if not more deadly. They simply lack range.

You don't get to dictate the person's requirements. You also have no idea what an assault rifle is, so kindly piss off and learn more before you become a rhetoric spouting machine.

Did you know a lot of the drugs in this country are illegally brought over from Mexico and other countries? How you ask? Because laws only stop those who obey them.

That's stupid rhetoric that serves no purpose. The "Reasonable" background checks are a registry to be kept for indeterminate periods of time, and as the confiscations in New Orleans showed during the aftermath of Katrina, our rights are in danger when there is a registry. How would you like to have a "Reasonable" set of privacy on the internet, where everything you do is cataloged and kept with your username which also happens to be your real name with home address for anyone to search?

Australia also did not have as many guns, the density, the crime, the drug issue that we in the US have. Why not talk about Mexico and their "Reasonable" restrictions on civilian ownership. Boy, that is a paradise...

Please cite sources that indicate your case's validity.

That's a load of crap. The original argument stands. The risks involved in a "mass shooting" are small compared to the legal uses of such tools. If someone wants to commit harm, they will. Bombs, fire, etc. You can't legislate away crazy.

In a crisis, your grip changes, and this can also happen during injury, which is when a gun may be used to stave off a threat. People who clamor for this sort of thing tend NOT to actually know about or use guns themselves, and that's the problem. Training is more important than any added part of a gun that can fail, causing the death of the operator from inability to defend oneself.

Intoxication and lack of training are more dangerous than guns that can fire without the magazine, and frankly, I and other gun enthusiasts AVOID guns with lots of extra nonsense as stuff that can fail and make it difficult to do things with our own property, such as decide to sell or trade the gun toward something we would like better. Guns are collectable items that often increase in value. Let's stop this nonsense already. It is unwanted by those who actually use them.

The mere fact of having a fiat currency means you are taxed, or penalized in two different and equally damaging ways. They need to stop this imbalance, because as our debt grows faster than we can pay it off, our credit worthiness, as judged by other nations decreases. Wealth cannot come from the will of the government. They don't understand it, and they try to have at least a fractional estimate of their spending come in via the tax coffers each year.

Inflation is not being kept down. It is running away, and being hidden. The mere printing of more and more money demands that this happens, and in order to deal with our overspending, they print more money.

The issue was never meant to be their equivalence, but rather the waste associated with it. By the way, Do you know how much that 1.5% actually is?

The value of taxes diminishes with the waste and poor performance of government. Most of that money is going to be used for aid to countries with whom we have no business propping up when our own is failing, or in the ever increasing military spending which does not make our troops safer, but instead wastes billions of dollars building the latest blowy uppy thing.

Your lack of ability shines here. This technique carries it all. If the application brings all it needs, then it doesn't matter if the user of the application has their directory first in the search path. If you want to make sure you use your own version of shared or linked objects, that's how you segregate them. It won't break anything, as the path is user specific.

Now again... where's my check.