- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,164
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I mean they both raised a number of red flags and we're either unmonitored as Cho was (He had court appointed therapy or some **** that he didn't go to on more than one occasion) and this Hasan guy was clearly raising red flags all over the place for being off his rocker.
I find it hard to believe that a Soldier in the Army would not pass a background check.
As for Cho...where did his guns come from again?
Neither should have gotten a gun. Cho was certifiable and documented and Hassan was being tracked by FBI. Our system failed in both instances.
I mean they both raised a number of red flags and we're either unmonitored as Cho was (He had court appointed therapy or some **** that he didn't go to on more than one occasion) and this Hasan guy was clearly raising red flags all over the place for being off his rocker.
And they both got their guns without proper background checks? I find it hard to believe that a Soldier in the Army would not pass a background check. As for Cho...where did his guns come from again?
On Cho:
"Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, according to federal officials. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony."
"Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said Tuesday afternoon that both guns were purchased legally in Virginia."
No dubious means here.
Yes, our gun control laws leave much to be desired. Do you think this event will have any effect on them?
Well, the smaller the system, the more effecient, so there should be "federal" and "state" lists for no-gun personnel. I believe in gun rights. But, for handguns, I see nothing wrong with having the waiting period. The background checks aren't good enough, obviously.
In Cho's case, he should have been flagged as mentally unstable. But he is granted privacy for medical records. His therapist should have the power to call the cops and get a flag on his record in the national database or something.
Hassan, well, I explained that one already. PC FBI and Army Officers to scared to call a spade a spade. Soldiers get clearances pulled all the time, for menial ****, in many cases.
In Cho's case, when did court orders become private. Seems like the sort of thing that should pop up in a thorough background check.
In the case of Hassan, the FBI and the Army officers findings should have also popped up in a thorough background check.
Any mental diagnosis is confidetial, he was a self-referral, IIRC.
There weren't any finding b/c they were to scared of PC backlash to do anything.
The FBI and the military are afraid to report criminal actions? Or were there no criminal actions to report?
That's the problem. There were not. But conditions existed where these two didn't need guns.
Didn't need guns? How would either have been able to kill so many without guns?
Cho, I understand slipping through the cracks.
Hassan? No.
So court ordered therapy should not raise any red flags during a gun purchase?
If he had purchased the handgun illegally from that shop, they would be pressing charges against the shopkeeper. Are they pressing charges against the shopkeeper?
It's not gun control laws that are the problem, it's once again the system being either 'overburdened' or simply bureaucrats and state employees not doing their job. But for all the Cho's how many handgun applications are turned down? Does anyone ever want to view the flip side? I bet if you searched hard enough, called the Bureau of Justice Stats, or called a local Agency you could find something pertaining to the number of handgun requests that are turned down. These rare and tragic incidents should not be used to vilify the other millions of gun owners that follow the law.
So you prefer to ignore this part of the findings by the panel after the VT shootings ~ "The panel also criticized misinterpretations of privacy laws and gaps in Virginia's mental health system and gun laws."
If the bureaucrats had him contained him like they were supposed to...he would have never been able to buy the gun.
It's not the gun that kills, but the nutjob using it.
Hence the need for more thorough background checks.
P.S. There are more vehicle related deaths per year than gun related deaths. Let's start by regulating that before we move on to guns.
So you advocate more stringent traffic regulations to stem the tide of shooting sprees?
Yes that's exactly what I mean! I'm glad you caught that! I was afraid I had hidden the message in such a bluntly obvious way that your sharp mind would miss it!
Yes that's exactly what I mean! I'm glad you caught that! I was afraid I had hidden the message in such a bluntly obvious way that your sharp mind would miss it!
Glad you have the problem all solved.
Why don't we pass some legislation we can all agree on and make the most used thing in this nation (the Automobile) safer before we go off on self righteous witch hunts to disarm the law abiding populace because a narrow 1% likes to go ape****.
Not sure how this addresses the Fort Hood shooting spree. And how would requiring a more thorough background check disarm a law abiding populace?
If you can't follow along with me, I won't discuss with you because then I'm just going to be talking to myself and getting off topic.
Yes traffic fatalities are definitely off topic.
Well if you had read the entire post you would have seen that it was an example of what I think is more important than gun legislation, but pick and choose as usual. You do such a good job at working my posts against me that way.
And this applies to Fort Hood how?
It applies to you focusing on the wrong part of my post.
Alright, here comes my point, you ready?
Keep a closer eye on red flags like Hasan
AND
Don't infringe (too far) into the rights of Law Abiding Citizenry on account of a crazy few (who should have been better watched in the first place)
By doing what specifically? That is what I am trying to get from you.
A more thorough background check for gun purchases while not infringing on the right of law abiding citizens would help accomplish your objective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?