• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Hood - Terrorist Attack?

Terrorist or Not

  • Yes, A terrorist Attack

    Votes: 38 54.3%
  • no

    Votes: 32 45.7%

  • Total voters
    70
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.

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 find it hard to believe that a Soldier in the Army would not pass a background check.

You'd be surprised. However, Hassan had a SECRET clearance from our Govt. That should disturb you more. But if the big, mean Army would have taken it away because Hassan was a radical, it might have hurt his feelings.

I bought a pistol at the exact same store Hassan did about two years ago. It took all of ten minutes to get screened and cleared. I did it on a lunch break from work.


As for Cho...where did his guns come from again?

He walked into a gun shop and bought them.
 
Neither should have gotten a gun. Cho was certifiable and documented and Hassan was being tracked by FBI. Our system failed in both instances.

Yes, our gun control laws leave much to be desired. Do you think this event will have any effect on them?
 
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.

So court ordered therapy should not raise any red flags during a gun purchase?
 
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.
 
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.

Very similar failures in the background checks required for gun purchases in both 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.

Any mental diagnosis is confidetial, he was a self-referral, IIRC.

In the case of Hassan, the FBI and the Army officers findings should have also popped up in a thorough background check.

There weren't any finding b/c they were to scared of PC backlash to do anything.
 
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.

"In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine convened a panel consisting of various officials and experts to investigate and examine the response and handling of issues related to the shootings. The panel released its final report in August 2007, devoting more than 30 pages to detailing Cho's troubled history. In the report, the panel criticized the failure of the educators and mental health professionals who came into contact with Cho during his college years to notice his deteriorating condition and help him. The panel also criticized misinterpretations of privacy laws and gaps in Virginia's mental health system and gun laws. In addition, the panel faulted Virginia Tech administrators in particular for failing to take immediate action after the first shootings."
Seung-Hui Cho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The FBI and the military are afraid to report criminal actions? Or were there no criminal actions to report?
 
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. Cho, I understand slipping through the cracks.

Hassan? No.
 
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.

I see no difference between the two cases in that respect.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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."
 
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.


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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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!

:rofl

Classic.
 
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.
 
Glad you have the problem all solved.

Now, if we can go back to Acting like Semi-Adult land, I was referring to the fact that if we want to get all in a tissy over something that kills people, why don't we focus on morons driving. Two years ago in fayetteville some stupid teenager managed to bounce a PT Cruiser into the 2nd story of a house. Not because there was an angle or a ramp, but because he was being a dick and driving too fast and literally launched it coming off a turn.

Moral of the story: His friend died, and he lived. What do you think the moral of the story is?

And that's just 1 of the umpteen stories I've heard almost on a monthly basis about either an inexperienced kid getting in a wreck here or dumbass talking on a cell phone there...

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****.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.

Keep. Tabs. On. Red. Flags.

at least with Hasan they had evidence to believe. Just because someone purchases a gun legitimately doesn't automatically mean they intend to do something crazy.

also we're having this conversation in two threads, are we not?
 
Back
Top Bottom