the points of complaint are not against those sensible owners, its the ease with which the nutjobs can get them
You need to listen to what the anti-gun people say a bit more closely. "Nobody needs..." isn't directed at the real criminals who use one or two guns to kill people, it's directed at the collectors who are quite sensible in their ownership and don't kill anyone. The guy earlier who would allow guns but only if locked in safes at gun clubs or at home wasn't talking about just the criminals keeping them inaccessible to even the owners. (How do I get my gun from my house to the gun club where I can shoot it if it is locked in the safe?)
In any case, since the buyers from Gun TV will have to go through the same process to actually take delivery that other sensible owners do, then the access won't be easier to the nutjobs any more than it already is.
TV shopping channels are all about impulse purchasing. That's why they have so many deals that have a timer on them.
Because to see those timers, you have to be watching the channel, and the intended market for those who will be watching the channel are exactly as the OP said. Who cares if a decent, law-abiding citizen buys something from that channel because he wanted to beat the timer to get a good deal? He's not going to decide to go shoot up a school just because "I got this gun with 32 seconds left on the Flash Deal on Gun TV!".
The demographic they're going for may well be
it may well be exactly as stated. You putting motives in their mouth doesn't make it true.
and looking for solutions to their problems that are all focused on "them people out there".
Well, what a shame that those people won't have to go to the local gun store and go through a background check by buying guns from the nice people on television, huh? Oh, wait. They'll have to go through the same restrictions as if they walked into the local gun store and plunked down a pile of cash.
What I want to know, from the summary, is how "two way radios" got to be "gun related"?
The difference between us is that I don't buy junk.
Perhaps, but more so that you don't like the kind of people who go to hamfests.
As I said, the good stuff was always sent straight to auction
You're wrong. I've found wonderful things at hamfests and surplus stores. Auction was not the main outlet.
where you pretty much buy it as is (meaning as per the description)
OMG, if you think "as is" means "as it was described" at an auction, you are in for some horrible surprises. "As is" means "as you see it with no guarantees at all."
People with things that are actually usable don't go to swap meets
How do you know? As you said, you don't go to them anymore. I find lots of usable stuff there, from people who have no interest in learning how to use eBay or deal with the hassle of buyers there.
Why would I go to a rainy field to buy a box of old SATA cables that _might_work when I can get new ones for the same price off any number of sites.
Why would I go to a hamfest where I can get Andrews LDF4 or FSJ4 1/2" heliax for 10 cents a foot, and new connectors for it at $5 a pop? Oh, I don't know.
With your penchant for buying junk,
You're penchant to leap to conclusions makes for wonderful ad hominem, but adds nothing to the discussion.
What are you claiming Fry's doesn't sell any more?
Surplus. It gots lots of parts and gizmos, but not surplus. The kind of stuff you walk up and down the aisles and say "whazit?" and then "what can I make from that?"
Why drive 60 miles (from where I am) when I can buy new stuff online from Amazon cheaper? Or Newark or Digikey?
Microsoft now has Windows 7 users shutting off auto updates to stop this.
I've had to shut off auto-updates for a very long time. My graduate students are VERY unhappy when they start a week-long model run and a few days later the computer has rebooted to install a needless update.
Windows 10, as I understand it, makes this problem worse.
I don't know what is in the mind of the Microsoft people. They finally get an OS that is stable enough it can run for a week without needing to be rebooted (or rebooting on its own) and they decide you have to reboot anyway.
And I was pointing out the problem with your solution to the vertical problem.
and it's not meant to be cross-language.
Well, then, isn't it a good thing that delivery services never operate across language boundaries and nobody ever sends packages across those boundaries.
It's probably quite easy if both people understand Chinese.
Yes, I suppose so, but if one of them does not... You know, this is an English language discussion forum, so I think it is fair to assume that a comment about communicating Chinese words might have an implied assumption that at least one of the people involved doesn't speak it.
This. I want content I ASK FOR, not the crap you think I might want to see. It is pathetically stupid for Firefox to put ANYTHING on a new tab except perhaps the home page the user has set. I'd rather they not even put the "settings" wheel on a page that is supposed to be BLANK (about:blank).
No, I don't want to put a link to my home page on your home page.
I find it rather annoying when Firefox on CentOS decides that I need to see some CentOS page when I open it, and the repeated "check plugins" page that cannot be disabled on Windows is even more so. It takes fiddling deep in the config to set the plugin check URL to something invalid to get it to stop running off to momma.
Could you get your deliveries where you actually are during delivery hours in the first place?
Sure. When I tell people to send me something, that's what I do. And then people send me stuff I didn't ask for and don't know is coming, and I wind up driving 20 miles to get it.
You're complaining they don't go dig out your package from somewhere, put a different address on it, re-sort it, and deliver it to the new address for free?
They have to "dig it out" when I come pick it up, right? They have machines that print labels, right? They already go, every day, to the place I want it delivered. It costs them nothing to do this, and I consider "delivery" as part of the service they've already sold to the person who paid them to DELIVER the package.
I think they are supposed to try 3 times,
At BEST, that means I would have to "sign" for the item without actually getting it and then they'll leave it tossed someplace convenient for them on my front step or lawn where they KNOW I am not. If I never see it, how can I say it wasn't delivered if I SIGNED FOR IT?
This is why I say that UPS has already figured out a scam to save themselves lots of miles, so pretending this three word system will be good for them is just stupid. They don't need a reason not to drive those miles they are paid to drive.
Certainly easier to remember 3 words someone tells you than it is to remember lat/lon.
Three random words? No, I don't think so. It will lead to assumptions like yours that "this is so easy to remember, I don't have to write it down." And then, you forget. Or you remember a homonym or synonym instead of the actual word. It will go into your short term memory and you'll try to dredge it back up a day or two later and fail.
At least a UTM coordinate is hard enough to remember from the beginning that you will write it down. And if it is important to know where it is, you'll enter it as a waypoint in your GPS. Which you cannot do with three random words.
In my area, UPS has already figured out how to drive one mile less a day. They stop by my house ONCE, leave a pretty little yellow slip of paper somewhere (sometimes on the front door, but that usually falls off and I've found them in the front lawn) and I have to drive 20 miles round trip to the local UPS office to pick whatever it is up.
Oh, yes, I could pay them extra money to deliver it someplace else that they ALREADY GO TO EVERY DAY where I actually am during delivery hours, of course. It would cost them less than trying a second delivery to the same address, but I should pay more for it.
11 alpha numeric characters to memorise, or 3 words? Hmm.
If you tell me your lat/lon coordinates, I can tell immediately what part of the world you are in, and with a simple map I can get it down to a much closer approximation.
To do that with 3-words, I'd have to memorize not just 3 words, but 57 quintillion combinations of those three. In multiple languages.
The poor fellow who is waiting at the water hole for his Ebola medicine is going to have to learn a lot more three word combinations just to describe his normal daily routine than I would every have to memorize UTM or lat/lon pairs. I've got a GPS that can tell me that data; which GPS currently on the market (or likely to be on the market ever) will tell anyone the "three words"?
And as for the "approximate location", all it takes is truncating the UTM or lat/lon data -- trivial to do. To approximate a "three words" location requires a completely different set of three words.
Or do you think you can just say "I'm going to walk 1/2 mile east of here, so meet me at, umm, what's barf.snicker.retch plus 1/2 mile east again?"
Hardly. There is no easy conversion, you have to go online (or have the database on a smart device) to find out the translation.
Its not a replacement for an actual address, but certainly can help if you don't have an actual address.
Except UTM can easily address down to the nearest meter (or better), is a world-wide global standard (is both known worldwide and applies worldwide), and is found in most GPSs, if not all. For addresses within the same grid square, it is trivial to determine how far away and in which direction the destination is. It uses a global character set and needs no translation from one language to another -- which 3words cannot do anyway.
But OMG, it is so much easier for everyone to learn the new three words system in all the different languages than for me to learn a handful of numbers.
You assume that all gun violence is committed by criminals.
I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who shoots up a room full of people, or even just goes out to shoot just one, is a criminal, since there are LAWS against such things and people who break laws are criminals.
Also, if the criminal knows you don't have a gun, he has less of a reason to actually shoot you rather than to just wave it in your general direction.
I'll let you make the assumption that a criminal who is attacking you with a gun won't shoot you with the gun because you don't have one. If he isn't going to shoot you, why bother to comply with whatever it is he is demanding you do? "Give me all your money or I'll shoot you." "No, you won't shoot me." You wanna make that bet?
It seems to work in other developed countries.
Why yes, there is absolutely no crime in other countries because there are so many policemen that they can be everywhere at once. You apparently have never traveled outside the US if you make that kind of ridiculous claim. (In some countries, the policemen ARE the criminals. Perhaps you didn't know that?)
I would expect that the firearms might not be carried within such a facility,
There is a significant difference between claiming that reducing limits on concealed carry would have zero effect because all the people involved are developmentally disabled and the truth of the matter that there were almost certainly a large proportion (if not the majority) of people present who were not.
Perhaps, but descriptive or explanatory clauses have a purpose - they're not just decorative. It's reasonable to assume they 'describe' and 'explain' why what follows is there.
Did I say otherwise?
In other words, they provide context and intention to the other phrase, "shall not be infringed".
Hardly. "Shall not be infringed" stands alone in meaning. What the descriptive clause regarding the militia covers is just one reason why it was felt important to enumerate this right.
And that the standing army might render that moot,
That you feel an inalienable right can be rendered moot by some action of the government is very interesting. "Oh, that right to security on your papers and stuff, that's all moot because the government promises it won't ever look at your stuff if they happen to show up in your house unannounced and unwarranted."
I'm okay with the 2nd ammendment allowing guns - licensed, trackable, non-military style guns.
I'm glad you're okay with a limited subset of the rights enumerated (not granted) in the Constitution.
That's one interpretation of "A well regulated militia being...".
The interpretation of "a well regulated militia" that tries to remove the inalienable right enumerated (not granted) by the US Constitution is absurd. A subordinate clause that lists one reason why it is important to enumerate a right does not otherwise limit that right.
oh, the English language.
To understand the second amendment, you have to read the entire amendment and not stop at the end of the bit about the militia. When you do that, you will realize that the English language allows descriptive or explanatory clauses in a sentence that do not assume the role of prescriptive just because they are in a sentence that contains another clause that is. Nothing in the Second Amendment tries to claim that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to members of a militia, well regulated or not. It is a right belonging to the citizens, period.
Perhaps if you consider that the right for persons to be secure in their persons, papers, places and effects does not apply only to those who have some specific reason to want to be secure in the listed areas, you will understand a bit more.
I have to come down on the non-gun side here... the people attacked are developmentally disabled, which means that they are members of a class who would not be permitted firearms in the first place, independently of whether or not the general population were more likely to be carrying guns.
I know RTFA is passe, but you should have. The shootings took place at a center for developmentally disabled people that provides services to them, apparently at a Christmas party. "It employs nearly 670 people at its facilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties,...", and you would expect a Christmas party would have a significant number of said employees present, even if it is just to provide services to the disabled people.
Therefore, unless you consider people who provide services to the disabled to be ineligible for carry permits, there is a significant chance that looser carry policies might have resulted in a different outcome.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
In an enclosed space, range is not a significant discriminator, the ability to direct fire is. Yes, rate of fire does matter, but your claim that longer range wins out is incorrect.
What is particularly galling about this is that Mr. Obama has chosen yet another tragedy as a chance to politicize the issue. "Obama said Congress should act in a bipartisan manner to close loopholes, including one that allows people on the TSA no-fly list to legally purchase firearms." Because, of course, we know that everyone on the no-fly list is a convicted criminal who has evil intentions towards everyone else on the planet. From this report:
The precise guidelines and particular factors the government relies on to place individuals on
terrorist watchlists are not made public. The criteria for placement on the No Fly list, as well as
whether a person is on the No Fly list, are considered "Sensitive Security Information" (SSI) and
have not been publicly released by the federal government.
So, you can get on the list for some reason, cannot find out who is on the list, and have a difficult time getting off.
Given that the names on the list are not released to the public, it would be very hard for a dealer to know someone is on the list and should not be sold a weapon.
Actually, moron, it's a reason to ban guns. Less guns means less gun violence.
Three epic fails in two sentences.
1. You assume a ban on guns means criminals will have fewer guns to commit violence with.
2. You assume that criminals having fewer guns and law abiding citizens having no guns means there will be less gun violence.
3. You couldn't manage to keep a civil tongue while insulting someone who disagrees with you just because they do.
I'm tired of living in a country where idiots continually respond to gun violence by saying "We need more guns."
Since the first amendment guarantees their right to speak, I guess you have only one real option to solve this problem. I hear that Somalia has great deals on housing prices.
We don't need 250 million guns.
Epic fails number 4 and 5.
4. What you need is not the same as what other people need, and projecting your lack of desires into a lack of need for others is a fail.
5. Excessive hyperbole.
I'm happy the cops here have guns; it's pretty clear I have less to fear from them than I do from the civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Epic fail number 6, and you repeated fail number 5.
6. Expecting the cops to be able to be everywhere at once so they can protect you from armed criminals. There are more criminals than cops, and criminals tend to gather where cops are not. Even the cops admit that they cannot be everywhere and protect everyone all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
But they're too lazy to get a HAM license, so... two way radios.
Uhhh, perhaps you didn't realize that almost all of the radios that hams use are "two way radios."
I would phrase the question, "What decent, law-abiding citizen is watching GunTV?"
When watching TV becomes a crime, only criminals will have TVs. Do you really not understand the implications of the question you just asked?
the points of complaint are not against those sensible owners, its the ease with which the nutjobs can get them
You need to listen to what the anti-gun people say a bit more closely. "Nobody needs ..." isn't directed at the real criminals who use one or two guns to kill people, it's directed at the collectors who are quite sensible in their ownership and don't kill anyone. The guy earlier who would allow guns but only if locked in safes at gun clubs or at home wasn't talking about just the criminals keeping them inaccessible to even the owners. (How do I get my gun from my house to the gun club where I can shoot it if it is locked in the safe?)
In any case, since the buyers from Gun TV will have to go through the same process to actually take delivery that other sensible owners do, then the access won't be easier to the nutjobs any more than it already is.
TV shopping channels are all about impulse purchasing. That's why they have so many deals that have a timer on them.
Because to see those timers, you have to be watching the channel, and the intended market for those who will be watching the channel are exactly as the OP said. Who cares if a decent, law-abiding citizen buys something from that channel because he wanted to beat the timer to get a good deal? He's not going to decide to go shoot up a school just because "I got this gun with 32 seconds left on the Flash Deal on Gun TV!".
The demographic they're going for may well be
it may well be exactly as stated. You putting motives in their mouth doesn't make it true.
and looking for solutions to their problems that are all focused on "them people out there".
Well, what a shame that those people won't have to go to the local gun store and go through a background check by buying guns from the nice people on television, huh? Oh, wait. They'll have to go through the same restrictions as if they walked into the local gun store and plunked down a pile of cash.
What I want to know, from the summary, is how "two way radios" got to be "gun related"?
The difference between us is that I don't buy junk.
Perhaps, but more so that you don't like the kind of people who go to hamfests.
As I said, the good stuff was always sent straight to auction
You're wrong. I've found wonderful things at hamfests and surplus stores. Auction was not the main outlet.
where you pretty much buy it as is (meaning as per the description)
OMG, if you think "as is" means "as it was described" at an auction, you are in for some horrible surprises. "As is" means "as you see it with no guarantees at all."
People with things that are actually usable don't go to swap meets
How do you know? As you said, you don't go to them anymore. I find lots of usable stuff there, from people who have no interest in learning how to use eBay or deal with the hassle of buyers there.
Why would I go to a rainy field to buy a box of old SATA cables that _might_work when I can get new ones for the same price off any number of sites.
Why would I go to a hamfest where I can get Andrews LDF4 or FSJ4 1/2" heliax for 10 cents a foot, and new connectors for it at $5 a pop? Oh, I don't know.
With your penchant for buying junk,
You're penchant to leap to conclusions makes for wonderful ad hominem, but adds nothing to the discussion.
What are you claiming Fry's doesn't sell any more?
Surplus. It gots lots of parts and gizmos, but not surplus. The kind of stuff you walk up and down the aisles and say "whazit?" and then "what can I make from that?"
Why drive 60 miles (from where I am) when I can buy new stuff online from Amazon cheaper? Or Newark or Digikey?
I can sell and buy from the comfort of my own home and no longer deal with the duck-arsed wankers that swap meets attract.
Thank goodness there's one less of them now. Buying junk sight-unseen is such a wonderful experience, I hope you're having fun.
Forgot to mention Surplus Gizmos last time.
Dayton Hamfest, May of every year, with a trip to Mendlesons.
Microsoft now has Windows 7 users shutting off auto updates to stop this.
I've had to shut off auto-updates for a very long time. My graduate students are VERY unhappy when they start a week-long model run and a few days later the computer has rebooted to install a needless update.
Windows 10, as I understand it, makes this problem worse.
I don't know what is in the mind of the Microsoft people. They finally get an OS that is stable enough it can run for a week without needing to be rebooted (or rebooting on its own) and they decide you have to reboot anyway.
That trick also works with blowjobs and heroin.
Yeah, go the guard at a backstage door and say "pizza for a blowjob" and see how far you get.
I was just addressing the altitude problem.
And I was pointing out the problem with your solution to the vertical problem.
and it's not meant to be cross-language.
Well, then, isn't it a good thing that delivery services never operate across language boundaries and nobody ever sends packages across those boundaries.
It's probably quite easy if both people understand Chinese.
Yes, I suppose so, but if one of them does not ... You know, this is an English language discussion forum, so I think it is fair to assume that a comment about communicating Chinese words might have an implied assumption that at least one of the people involved doesn't speak it.
People do want this. But not from you.
This. I want content I ASK FOR, not the crap you think I might want to see. It is pathetically stupid for Firefox to put ANYTHING on a new tab except perhaps the home page the user has set. I'd rather they not even put the "settings" wheel on a page that is supposed to be BLANK (about:blank).
No, I don't want to put a link to my home page on your home page.
I find it rather annoying when Firefox on CentOS decides that I need to see some CentOS page when I open it, and the repeated "check plugins" page that cannot be disabled on Windows is even more so. It takes fiddling deep in the config to set the plugin check URL to something invalid to get it to stop running off to momma.
Could you get your deliveries where you actually are during delivery hours in the first place?
Sure. When I tell people to send me something, that's what I do. And then people send me stuff I didn't ask for and don't know is coming, and I wind up driving 20 miles to get it.
You're complaining they don't go dig out your package from somewhere, put a different address on it, re-sort it, and deliver it to the new address for free?
They have to "dig it out" when I come pick it up, right? They have machines that print labels, right? They already go, every day, to the place I want it delivered. It costs them nothing to do this, and I consider "delivery" as part of the service they've already sold to the person who paid them to DELIVER the package.
I think they are supposed to try 3 times,
At BEST, that means I would have to "sign" for the item without actually getting it and then they'll leave it tossed someplace convenient for them on my front step or lawn where they KNOW I am not. If I never see it, how can I say it wasn't delivered if I SIGNED FOR IT?
This is why I say that UPS has already figured out a scam to save themselves lots of miles, so pretending this three word system will be good for them is just stupid. They don't need a reason not to drive those miles they are paid to drive.
Certainly easier to remember 3 words someone tells you than it is to remember lat/lon.
Three random words? No, I don't think so. It will lead to assumptions like yours that "this is so easy to remember, I don't have to write it down." And then, you forget. Or you remember a homonym or synonym instead of the actual word. It will go into your short term memory and you'll try to dredge it back up a day or two later and fail.
At least a UTM coordinate is hard enough to remember from the beginning that you will write it down. And if it is important to know where it is, you'll enter it as a waypoint in your GPS. Which you cannot do with three random words.
Oh, yes, I could pay them extra money to deliver it someplace else that they ALREADY GO TO EVERY DAY where I actually am during delivery hours, of course. It would cost them less than trying a second delivery to the same address, but I should pay more for it.
11 alpha numeric characters to memorise, or 3 words? Hmm.
If you tell me your lat/lon coordinates, I can tell immediately what part of the world you are in, and with a simple map I can get it down to a much closer approximation.
To do that with 3-words, I'd have to memorize not just 3 words, but 57 quintillion combinations of those three. In multiple languages.
The poor fellow who is waiting at the water hole for his Ebola medicine is going to have to learn a lot more three word combinations just to describe his normal daily routine than I would every have to memorize UTM or lat/lon pairs. I've got a GPS that can tell me that data; which GPS currently on the market (or likely to be on the market ever) will tell anyone the "three words"?
And as for the "approximate location", all it takes is truncating the UTM or lat/lon data -- trivial to do. To approximate a "three words" location requires a completely different set of three words. Or do you think you can just say "I'm going to walk 1/2 mile east of here, so meet me at, umm, what's barf.snicker.retch plus 1/2 mile east again?"
It works extremely well for lat/long information.
Hardly. There is no easy conversion, you have to go online (or have the database on a smart device) to find out the translation.
Its not a replacement for an actual address, but certainly can help if you don't have an actual address.
Except UTM can easily address down to the nearest meter (or better), is a world-wide global standard (is both known worldwide and applies worldwide), and is found in most GPSs, if not all. For addresses within the same grid square, it is trivial to determine how far away and in which direction the destination is. It uses a global character set and needs no translation from one language to another -- which 3words cannot do anyway.
But OMG, it is so much easier for everyone to learn the new three words system in all the different languages than for me to learn a handful of numbers.
I live at purple.monkey.dishwasher.59
And what is that in Portuguese? Or Swahili? Imagine the fun of trying to transliterate, or even communicate, a Chinese "three word" address.
You assume that all gun violence is committed by criminals.
I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who shoots up a room full of people, or even just goes out to shoot just one, is a criminal, since there are LAWS against such things and people who break laws are criminals.
Also, if the criminal knows you don't have a gun, he has less of a reason to actually shoot you rather than to just wave it in your general direction.
I'll let you make the assumption that a criminal who is attacking you with a gun won't shoot you with the gun because you don't have one. If he isn't going to shoot you, why bother to comply with whatever it is he is demanding you do? "Give me all your money or I'll shoot you." "No, you won't shoot me." You wanna make that bet?
It seems to work in other developed countries.
Why yes, there is absolutely no crime in other countries because there are so many policemen that they can be everywhere at once. You apparently have never traveled outside the US if you make that kind of ridiculous claim. (In some countries, the policemen ARE the criminals. Perhaps you didn't know that?)
I would expect that the firearms might not be carried within such a facility,
There is a significant difference between claiming that reducing limits on concealed carry would have zero effect because all the people involved are developmentally disabled and the truth of the matter that there were almost certainly a large proportion (if not the majority) of people present who were not.
Perhaps, but descriptive or explanatory clauses have a purpose - they're not just decorative. It's reasonable to assume they 'describe' and 'explain' why what follows is there.
Did I say otherwise?
In other words, they provide context and intention to the other phrase, "shall not be infringed".
Hardly. "Shall not be infringed" stands alone in meaning. What the descriptive clause regarding the militia covers is just one reason why it was felt important to enumerate this right.
And that the standing army might render that moot,
That you feel an inalienable right can be rendered moot by some action of the government is very interesting. "Oh, that right to security on your papers and stuff, that's all moot because the government promises it won't ever look at your stuff if they happen to show up in your house unannounced and unwarranted."
I'm okay with the 2nd ammendment allowing guns - licensed, trackable, non-military style guns.
I'm glad you're okay with a limited subset of the rights enumerated (not granted) in the Constitution.
That's one interpretation of "A well regulated militia being...".
The interpretation of "a well regulated militia" that tries to remove the inalienable right enumerated (not granted) by the US Constitution is absurd. A subordinate clause that lists one reason why it is important to enumerate a right does not otherwise limit that right.
oh, the English language.
To understand the second amendment, you have to read the entire amendment and not stop at the end of the bit about the militia. When you do that, you will realize that the English language allows descriptive or explanatory clauses in a sentence that do not assume the role of prescriptive just because they are in a sentence that contains another clause that is. Nothing in the Second Amendment tries to claim that the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to members of a militia, well regulated or not. It is a right belonging to the citizens, period.
Perhaps if you consider that the right for persons to be secure in their persons, papers, places and effects does not apply only to those who have some specific reason to want to be secure in the listed areas, you will understand a bit more.
I have to come down on the non-gun side here... the people attacked are developmentally disabled, which means that they are members of a class who would not be permitted firearms in the first place, independently of whether or not the general population were more likely to be carrying guns.
I know RTFA is passe, but you should have. The shootings took place at a center for developmentally disabled people that provides services to them, apparently at a Christmas party. "It employs nearly 670 people at its facilities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties,...", and you would expect a Christmas party would have a significant number of said employees present, even if it is just to provide services to the disabled people.
Therefore, unless you consider people who provide services to the disabled to be ineligible for carry permits, there is a significant chance that looser carry policies might have resulted in a different outcome.
Or perhaps the point is that guns with longer range, such as rifles, outclass short range weapons in a firefight.
In an enclosed space, range is not a significant discriminator, the ability to direct fire is. Yes, rate of fire does matter, but your claim that longer range wins out is incorrect.
What is particularly galling about this is that Mr. Obama has chosen yet another tragedy as a chance to politicize the issue. "Obama said Congress should act in a bipartisan manner to close loopholes, including one that allows people on the TSA no-fly list to legally purchase firearms." Because, of course, we know that everyone on the no-fly list is a convicted criminal who has evil intentions towards everyone else on the planet. From this report:
So, you can get on the list for some reason, cannot find out who is on the list, and have a difficult time getting off.
Given that the names on the list are not released to the public, it would be very hard for a dealer to know someone is on the list and should not be sold a weapon.
Actually, moron, it's a reason to ban guns. Less guns means less gun violence.
Three epic fails in two sentences.
1. You assume a ban on guns means criminals will have fewer guns to commit violence with.
2. You assume that criminals having fewer guns and law abiding citizens having no guns means there will be less gun violence.
3. You couldn't manage to keep a civil tongue while insulting someone who disagrees with you just because they do.
I'm tired of living in a country where idiots continually respond to gun violence by saying "We need more guns."
Since the first amendment guarantees their right to speak, I guess you have only one real option to solve this problem. I hear that Somalia has great deals on housing prices.
We don't need 250 million guns.
Epic fails number 4 and 5.
4. What you need is not the same as what other people need, and projecting your lack of desires into a lack of need for others is a fail.
5. Excessive hyperbole.
I'm happy the cops here have guns; it's pretty clear I have less to fear from them than I do from the civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Epic fail number 6, and you repeated fail number 5.
6. Expecting the cops to be able to be everywhere at once so they can protect you from armed criminals. There are more criminals than cops, and criminals tend to gather where cops are not. Even the cops admit that they cannot be everywhere and protect everyone all the time.
And way too many gun nuts.
And way too many people who think the people who don't agree with them are "nuts" to ever have a rational discussion about the issues.
Except the loonies ...
And we all know who those are, right?