Why arn't Mass Shootings considered Terrorism?

This is a pretty straight forward thread.....


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

IMHO there is no difference. All are doing it to prove some point. Weather it's that all non Muslims are infidels or that you shouldn't have bullied me or because no chic would do me. All use scare tactics to gain global attention to there plight. So why differentiate between the two?

Is it only because one is done by forieners?

Is it because we want to draw attention to the fact it was done by a religion in competition with Christianity?

I would ask if it's because gun control people want to demonize gun crime more then other crime but we consider terrorism worse.... Even tho. Mass shootings are usually against the least threatening most innocent targets.


Thoughts?

a reply to: ArtemisE

Most mass shootings aren't under the guise of terrorism because they don't include a political or religious agenda.

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Most mass shootings are the result of a lone gunman who has some deep rooted issues in their lives and psyche and cause them to flip out.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ArtemisE

Most mass shootings aren't under the guise of terrorism because they don't include a political or religious agenda.

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Most mass shootings are the result of a lone gunman who has some deep rooted issues in their lives and psyche and cause them to flip out.

~Tenth

Obviously that's what the Government want you to think.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

However, it is possible for a mass murderer to be empowered by Political, Racial and or other factors.

It does fall into the individual's issue.. but aren't suicide bombers the same thing?

a reply to: ArtemisE

So why don't we consider mass shootings or school shootings terrorism? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well they obviously cause terror but they don't fit the definition.

Unless the shootings are politically or religiously motivated.

It's all semantics to create multiple issues out of the same thing. Violence. This is done so that they can push different solutions for each issue.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's all semantics to create multiple issues out of the same thing. Violence. This is done so that they can push different solutions for each issue.

Probably the best answer most can agree with.

a reply to: ArtemisE

The socialist MSM are to busy blaming the gun and make the deaths into a political movement to actually do journalism and enlighten the people to some truth and or facts (which are always lacking).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah i look at it the same way the term "Terrorist" and "Rebel" used.

It depends on who is viewing.

Depends on who's doing the shootings/killings.
If they'd be muslims it would be concidered terrorism.

Apples and oranges. "Terrorism" is designed specifically to "terrorize" the populace for political gain done by people recruited to "the cause." It is done by a group of people who want you to think the have the capability of extended attacks and that you may be next. A typical terrorist attack is well-coordinated and involves many different people in the planning, making of explosives, and execution of an attack. After the attack they "claim responsibility" along with the threat of future attacks and political demands. They are not "just foreigners" at all and have been done in the US by both left wing and right wing groups. Examples on the left include Bill Ayers, Obama's friend and a member of the Weathermen, an SDS splinter group who thought the best way to end the Vietnam War was to kill congressmen and cops. On the right we have people like Timothy McVeigh, who blew up a federal building and killed a couple hundred people. His "organization" wasn't that organized, but he clearly identified with right wing hate groups.

These "school shootings" have been done largely by young "lone wolf" gunman who feel socially ostracized and/or are off their medications. They are just angry young man performing copycat killings. There are rarely any political overtones and no coordinated effort. Once the gunman is dead, there's no one else to go after.

They both kill people, to be sure, but how you can call them both "terrorism" with some vague, incorrect reference to that term only being used against foreigners, which is demonstrably untrue, is ridiculous.

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah i look at it the same way the term "Terrorist" and "Rebel" used.

It depends on who is viewing.

It does not depend on the viewer ...

Most "mass murders" are considered to be done by individual, without a political aim. However, it may very well be, that some of the school shootings are really a case of a suicide bomber, who is in reality a part of a bigger agenda.

Perhaps the school shooter, has the same political agenda as the Norwegian guy ... trying to promote a feudal state. A police state, for example ...

He might not even be aware of it, merely be the victim of others who are using his "mental disability" as a tool for their agenda.

Which would make the act, an act of terror ... but not the actor, a terrorist. Because the person who does this, is not doing it for a political purpose, but as revenge of personal grief.

That's the distinction ...

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ArtemisE

Most mass shootings are the result of a lone gunman who has some deep rooted issues in their lives and psyche and cause them to flip out.

~Tenth

That's what the ptb want you to think.

a reply to: schuyler

Colmbine in Colorado? Was pretty planned and coordinated....by a group of people. The only thing missing is the out side group, but it could be said that all are doing it for noteriety, political" fame", and the recruit others to there "cause". The cause of anarchy, which requires no central leadership. Most have even had anarchy literature.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Please allow me to ask a rather simple-minded question.

How do we benefit by calling insane mass killers "terrorists?"

Does it help us to understand the problem better? Can we now create more useful strategies to deal with it? Or, is it simply designed to inject fear and hatred into the discussion of Americans who really need psychiatric care? Perhaps it's a clever way of trying to create the impression that guns are identical to IEDs or suicide bomb vests?

"Why aren't Mass Shootings considered terrorism?" In short, "Why should we?"

a reply to: charles1952

I agree with you just from a different angle.

I think terrorist is used as a label to inspire hate in the populous pretending like all of a evil group are worse then other evil groups. Mainly to fleece us out of trillions as tax payers.

Kinda like in the 80's they did communist. Some how they convinced the nation that anyone who even considered the thought there may be a better financial system then capitalism. Was obviously an evil traitor who must be destroyed. Pretending like that meant you had to be a spy for the Russians.


Mass shootings are usually done by our own freaked out children rather then some one they can create an enemy worth using billions of tax dollars to defend against. Billions they can skim.

I'm not an anti gun guy.... I personally think it would be stupid not to take advantage of smart technology.....but that's a different subject.

I have a similar question.

Why aren't gang related shootings where thugs fire randomly and hit innocents considered mass shootings?

originally posted by: Battleline
a reply to: ArtemisE

The socialist MSM are to busy blaming the gun and make the deaths into a political movement to actually do journalism and enlighten the people to some truth and or facts (which are always lacking).

On the contrary, I'd say the Vegas shooting was clearly politically motivated and the MSM reported on those facts indicating a political motivation without hesitancy. Now whether reporting potential political motivations behind these kind of attacks is a good thing or not is debatable as it could potentially act to encourage similar behaviors or risk creating "martyrs" among like-minded individuals. I personally don't think that people going out and firing guns in public, either on a rampage or a directed killing, is a good thing and should not be reported as some sort of "political movement".

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

They are, that's why it doesn't seem like you've seen as many as the numbers say there are. They just don't get as much press.

A terrorist's goal is to create long-term constant fear in the minds of the people. Most mass shooters don't live through their rampages so there is more of a sense of closure on these terrible events. They are revolting to what they perceive as wrong In their own lives. Mass shooters don't leave the possibility of more like-minded and organized people repeating their acts for the same cause.