Why arn't Mass Shootings considered Terrorism?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
This is a pretty straight forward thread.....


So why don't we consider mass shootings or school shootings terrorism?

Terrorism is the illegal use of violence to advance some policy agenda. There's a purpose element, and a rational nexus between the action and the desired goal. Most active shooters seem to be whackjobs. They may have peculiar beliefs, but their violence is not part of a rational plan to make those beliefs into policy. Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a Federal building because he wanted white Christian separatists to rise up against the US Government, was a terrorist. The kids who shoot up schools because they are crazy and angry at their peers are not terrorists, because "I'm mad" is not a political agenda. There are, of course, many mass shootings which are clearly terrorism, and sometimes they are not characterized as such in the media or in courts. But in general, shooting a bunch of people is not sufficient to be a terrrorist. See the USG definitions here.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

So why don't we consider mass shootings or school shootings terrorism?

Give it time. What do you think this is about? I think it will lead to treating all gun crime (or even the potential for gun crime) like terrorism. Now that the precedent has been set by the aftermath of 9/11 for putting innocent people on watchlists and/or treating them like criminals if they even suspect they might have anything to do with terrorism, they can use the same blueprint with any kind of crime.

I predict there will be future watchlists for this kind of thing and that most of the people who are on them will not even know they're on them and will not have technically done anything wrong (other than possibly having said the wrong thing, read the wrong books or visited the wrong web sites).