Why aren’t mass shootings called terrorism?

[SecularMotion]

The scene has become increasingly familiar to many Americans: A gunman walks into a large public space and begins shooting, killing or wounding some bystanders and forcing others to cower under tables or run away in fear.

Why aren’t such incidents called acts of terrorism?

The examples seem too numerous to count. Last Saturday at a busy mall in Columbia, Md., a 19-year-old man opened fire and killed two people before turning the gun on himself. James Holmes had a court hearing Monday morning – he’s the 26-year-old man accused of shooting into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in 2012, killing 12 and wounding 70 more. There has been an average of one school shooting in America every other day since the beginning of the year, ranging from the campus of Wakefield Elementary School on the West Coast, to Berrendo Middle School in the South, and Delaware Valley Charter School in the East.

Fatal shootings occur so often in the United States that a journalist for a prominent British news organization has suggested international humanitarian intervention. But gun proponents insist such incidents – which have claimed far more American lives than high profile terror attacks like last year’s Boston Marathon bombings or the events of Sept. 11, 2001 – don’t merit the same ominous label.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/why-arent-mass-shootings-called-terror

[hack89]

1. Because we don't need a massive expansion of the Patriot Act?

It keeps the CIA, NSA, FBI and US military from expanding their domestic powers.

[BainsBane]

2. Why don't we declare the NRA a terrorist organization

because that is exactly what they are.

[hack89]

3. Does that make every member a terrorist?

Or do you believe in corporate personhood?

[G_j]

12. if they supply material support to the organization?

that's how it works with the PATRIOT Act.

[hack89]

16. So this is a situation where the Patriot Act is a good thing? nt

[G_j]

18. not really

just relating how it works.

[hack89]

19. Got it. nt

[pipoman]

11. by that same logic the ACLU

Should be a terrorist organization too, as exercise of virtually all civil liberties have and do result in death or injury or terror...the ACLU defends the KKK'S right to assimilate, and even demonstrate publicly.

[BainsBane]

14. That is not logic

The NRA promotes weapons that kill. It foments murder. That has nothing to do with civil liberties. Only in a profoundly sick nation do people equate civil liberty with the capacity to commit murder, and mass murder at that. No wonder we are the most violent nation on earth with the biggest war apparatus in human history. The government performs what it's people are. We are a nation of murderers who value profit and killing above human life. There is no better proof of that that the disturbing notion that killing is a civil liberty. No nation that doesn't worship violence and bloodshed would ever advance such disturbed ideas. The cult of death turns my stomach.

[hack89]

17. Show me one example of them directly fomenting murder.

or is this this an extension of your belief that all gun owners are pre-criminals just waiting for an opportunity to kill someone?

[Nye Bevan]

21. Ridiculous hyperbole.

I can't stand the NRA (and I have never even held a gun in my life) but they are not a "terrorist organization". If you devalue the word "terrorist" like this it will eventually become meaningless.

[BainsBane]

22. Far more people die from guns than terrorism

or even war. More Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 than in all wars in US history. I care about lost lives, not the race or religion of the killer. The NRA actively promotes policies that result in the highest homicide rate in the developed world. Gun nuts literally terrorize the country when they carry out mass shootings. The NRA does everything in its power to ensure those mass shooters operate unfettered. The NRA is far more deadly and far more dangerous than Al Qaeda. That you are accustomed to that kind of violence and more disturbed by the far less common "terrorist" attack from Islamists is a function of being desensitized to a high level of violence. What you think of the words is irrelevant. The fact is the NRA actively foments murder. They exist to secure profits for the gun industry and will go to any lengths to promote any and all uses of guns in furtherance of those profits. That their motives are financial rather than religious or political hardly makes them better than Islamist groups.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. If it's only the body count that counts where's the screed against alcohol?

More Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 than in all wars in US history. I care about lost lives...

No, no you don't. You have a political axe to grind and you will pick and choose whatever best suits your purpose and you will ignore any facts to the contrary all the while dispensing sadistic insults to those who disagree.

[Lost_Count]

33. That ship sailed a long time ago...

[badtoworse]

25. The fact that they aggressively defend RKBA does not make them terrorists

We have the 2nd Amendment in this country, but people like you would do away with the rights it protects. In that sense, you are keeping them in business.

[aikoaiko]

35. Yeah, they are part of the axis of evil.

NRA, the Supreme Court, and gun manufacturers.

They clearly conspire to murder people.

[sweetapogee]

61. are we not

taking this off topic? The OP asked a question about garden variety murder being terrorism. It is not asking if some organization is a terrorist group. If someone uses a knife to kill 10 people, does that make him a terrorist? If someone uses a chainsaw to cut up 20 people, do we call him a terrorist?

We seem to have forgotten that the 911 terrorist did not use guns. We also seem to forget that hollywood, the television & music industry, and the electronic game industry promotes guns to a much wider audience than any special interest gun group. If we call such a special interest group a terrorist group, would we not give those opposed to our agenda the ability to classify free speech organizations terrorist groups if their members stage any civil disobedience?

[BainsBane]

63. No, it's not off topic

Last edited Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

at all. God forbid I criticize the sacred NRA that fills the campaign coffers of Republicans.

I didn't forget the 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns. Guns are FAR more lethal than anything those we call terrorists have done.

I have to say calling mass shootings "garden variety murder" is pretty chilling. The gun lobby has succeeded in convincing too many Americans that domestic slaughter is somehow normal. It is not. Our homicide rate far exceeds every developed nation and is even higher than some war regions. The violence in this country is bloody, and the fact it continues in order to provide unfettered profits for the gun lobby is all the more repulsive.

You seem more interested in the nationality and religion of a killer than the killing itself. The threat of what we call terrorism is miniscule in comparison to the gun violence we face in this nation each and every year.

[sweetapogee]

74. have

a nice day!

[spin]

82. The NRA also donates to the campaigns of pro gun rights Democrats. ...

Admittedly the NRA does support fewer Democrats than Republicans but is this all that surprising since many in our party favor strong gun control, gun bans and some cases gun confiscation.

December 20, 2012, 08:54 pm
Half of Congress have received NRA donations
By Cameron Joseph

Half of the members of Congress have at one point received a donation from the National Rifle Association, according to an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog.

The NRA is a major player in any conversations about gun control, which the group historically has vehemently opposed in most circumstances. The NRA will hold a press conference on Friday to, in its words, offer "meaningful contributions" to make sure shootings like those that occurred in Newton, Conn., don't happen again.

Just over half of the members of the next Congress — 51 percent — have received NRA support at some point in their careers. That includes 93 percent of Senate Republicans, 88 percent of House Republicans, 15 percent of Senate Democrats and 10 percent of House Democrats. As the analysis points out, the donations are usually in the range of a few thousand dollars and are more about "allegiance than influence." In their last election 47 percent of members of Congress received NRA money.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/274093-half-of-congress-have-received-nra-donations#ixzz2s3NjraFv
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

It may also surprise you that there are times the NRA gives a Democrat a higher rating than his Republican opponent.

NRA Endorses 14 House Democrats Over Republicans
by FRANK JAMES

October 06, 201011:32 PM

The NRA has earned a reputation over the decades as a pro-gun advocacy group that's solidly in the Republican camp.

But in what will no doubt come as a surprise to many, the organization is endorsing 14 House Democrats in close races because their Second Amendment views line up with the with those of the gun-rights group.

It's an unwelcome move as far as Republicans are concerned. They've come to take NRA endorsements of their candidates as a given.

The Washington Post reports the NRA's policy in recent years is to support incumbents when their positions on gun rights are similar to the NRA's and their challengers.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/06/130393162/nra-endorses-14-house-democrats

I understand your point that mass murderers could be considered terrorists but if so why shouldn't we consider members of violent drug gangs in our nation to also be terrorists? Often drug gangs are influenced or controlled by the drug cartels which do terrorize Mexico.

Another factor which is commonly ignored by the gun control advocates is that it's not uncommon for an honest responsible citizen to use a firearm for legitimate self defense against an attacker who intends to seriously injure or kill him or members of his family. Even if you have martial arts training, it is difficult to survive an attack by an individual armed with a club, knife or gun without injury. Stopping such an attack does not always require the victim to shoot the attacker. Often when he realizes the victim is armed, he flees. How many bad guys have entered a home with evil intent until they heard the sound of a pump shotgun being racked?

Pregnant Woman With Shotgun Thwarts Burglars
December 6, 2011 5:51 PM

COON RAPIDS, Minn. (WCCO) — It’s the last thing two burglary suspects expected to hear when they broke into a Coon Rapids home. From within the house came the unmistakable sound of a pump shotgun. At the other end of that gun was a 22-year-old woman who is nine weeks pregnant.

The young woman asked not to be identified because the two suspects are still at large. However, she says when the men ignored her barking pit bull and black lab, and broke through a kitchen door, she had no other choice but to chamber a round into the 12-gauge shotgun.

There’s perhaps no other sound that commands as much respect and fear. The young woman at the business end of that gun was home alone and prepared to protect herself.
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/12/06/pregnant-woman-with-shotgun-thwarts-burglars/

[Jenoch]

73. Hyperbole is not helpful to solve the problem of gun violence.

[Union Scribe]

83. I think that's why nothing ever happens.

The rhetoric around this topic is like an anchor.

[aikoaiko]

4. Most don't seem to have political motivations.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Apart Nidal Hassan and *maybe* the Arapahoe, CO high school shooter

mass shootings aren't ideologically motivated. A victim feeling terrified isn't want makes an act terrorism, otherwise drunk driving would be terrorism. Terrorism uses violence and crime to advance an ideology.

Is this what is passing for serious commentary from a professional news organization these days?

[SecularMotion]

8. The drunk driving analogy fails.

Drunk drivers aren't acting out of any motivation whatsoever.

The motivations of mass shooters may be more personal than ideological, but the intent to create terror is the same.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Then rape is terrorism?

Terrorism is ideologically motivated. Most mass shooters are not ideologically motivated by a religious or political agenda despite the fact they may or may not be seeking to sow terror (as opposed to vindictively suicidal, seeking public fame, shooting at the voices, etc.).

I don't think Cho, Loughner, Holmes and the Navy yard shooter have enough marbles in the bag to hold a political agenda.

But then you have Joe Stack who flew his plane into the IRS building and left quotes from Marx. There's also the guy that tried to shoot-up the Family Research Center. The guy that took hostages at the Discovery Channel network offices. The Cleveland 6. The Unabomber, Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, come to mind. I would imagine these could be labeled terrorist in nature but they are probably dismissed because they don't fit the profile for your agenda.

[SecularMotion]

24. Rape is not terrorism as it doesn't threaten public safety

except in rare cases of serial rapists.

Loughner and the others may have been politically motivated, but that would be hard to determine due to their mental condition.

I agree that your other examples could be labeled as terrorist in nature.

[hack89]

30. So normal gun violence is not a public safety issue, only mass shootings? nt

[SecularMotion]

42. What's "normal" gun violence?

[hack89]

54. Non- mass shootings

gun violence that is a part of everyday criminal violence like murder, rape or an assault.

[DragonBorn]

31. Why not classify more crimes as terrorism?

Wouldn't it make the world a safer place if we classified rapes, murders, child molestation as terrorism?

It would give our law enforcement officers the tools they needed to make sure these criminal got the punishment they deserved.

Do you know how many child rapists get away each year just because we are not allowed to search their homes without search warrants? Do you not realize how many gun murders are allowed to escape justice simply because they tossed the gun they used to commit a murder.

If a police officer thinks someone has used a gun for murder that person should be arrested until it can be proven that they are innocent. If they are not proved innocent we can sent them to Gitmo, or a black site so they can never hurt another innocent again.

In fact why haven't we declared the Catholic Church a terrorist organization yet? They are responsible for the cover up and rape of more children than any other single organization in the world. We should arrest all priests, bishops, and deacons in America on terrorism charges and then liberate the Vatican from the tyranny of the pope with Special Forces and gorilla tactics.

We would be welcomed as liberators and defenders of children.

[madrchsod]

6. it`s the big lie

we have to feel superior to those "other people" who do bad things. so we maintain our illusion that we are not them.

"ain't that america,land of the free,and little pink houses for you and me"

[pipoman]

7. Most "person crimes" terrorizes someone

A terrorist act requires certain criteria not met by these acts. Be careful what you wish for, expanding the Patriot Act to include such things will only increase our out of control prison industrial complex and encourage more expansion.

[malaise]

9. Let me see - is it because the vast majority of the perps

are nice white Xtian young men - I'll take that for $2,000 Alex!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Joe Stack quoted Marx. Loughner, Holmes, Cho and Lanza were mentally ill.

Eric Rudolph preferred Nietzsche. The Arapahoe HS shooter was a pro-gun control socialist. The Cleveland 6 don't seem to espouse religious ideas. The Unabomber was an environmentalist, as was the guy that took hostages a the Discovery Network. I'm not sure what may have been the religion of the guy that tried to shoot-up the Family Research Center but I'll assume it may not have been "Xtian." Hassan was decidedly not "Xtian" nor "white."

Do you also run around complaining about Jewish bankers?

[malaise]

23. Note

'vast majority'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Citation please.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. DING, DING, DING, DING, we got a winnah!!!

[linuxman]

15. Because wordshave actual meanings?

This reminds me of a discussion our class had a few years ago.

We were talking about terrorism in it's various forms. We didn't cover mass shootings (that I can remember), but I remember one particular student who got really worked up about the topic. He insisted that terrorism was any criminal act which terrified someone. I took the argument to the logical conclusion and asked him if a mugging is terrorist as well. He had no problem with doubling down and affirming that it was. I shudder to think of that guy holding political office.

Can shootings be terrorism? Of course they can. My cat could tell you that. Are they ALL acts of terrorism? Of course not. The only one I can think of off the top of my head would be the Beltway "sniper" in '02 or thereabouts. A few people mention Dorner, but despite his political statements in his "manifesto", he motivated by revenge against a former employer to the best of my understanding.

There are many widely accepted, scholarly, "Official" definitions of terrorism, but none fit mass shooters by default.

[Major Nikon]

37. Terrorism requires a political objective

Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians in order to achieve a political goal.

You are correct in that there are many definitions of terrorism and some may not fit the one I listed, but most or all of them are going to specify that the motivation for the violence is political.

[linuxman]

39. I think you misunderstood my post.

I believe we are in agreement.

[Major Nikon]

40. I agreed with your post

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was contradicting you.

[linuxman]

41. Ah, I see. NT

[G_j]

20. though I think the NRA is indirectly responsible for real terror

and real death. They do not tell people to carry out acts of terror. They work to make it easy for anyone to gain access to the means to kill and terrorize.

The acts themselves are terrorism, IMO.

[Thinkingabout]

27. K & R

Like giving a 10 year old a car to drive, it is stupid to allow dangerous weapons to fall into hands of the mentally ill and those who feed on video games where it is fun to go through the killing motion. If the NRA would back and expand the background checks it would be a big start.

[DragonBorn]

38. I dont think you know what your talking about...

The NRA supported the background check law when it was first proposed. Can you tell me how they oppose background checks?

[Thinkingabout]

62. Did the background checks pass or did NRA fight every proposed bill?

[sked14]

68. The NRA supported the original background check contained in the Brady Bill

they opposed the one last year, matter of fact, the NRA was part of the process that wrote the Brady Bill.

[Thinkingabout]

76. This is what I am talking about. The NRA fights any restriction.

[adavid]

26. Oh dont worry,..

as soon as Arab Americans do it,,,,,,,..................

[RC]

29. There was one.

On an Army base. They're were some heated discussions around here, about whether what he did was terrorism or not, based on the fact he was Muslem^*.
Terrorism is an act. Mass shooting is terrorism. It doesn't matter who, or the state of mind of who is doing it. Sniping, mass shooting in malls, movie theaters, blowing up buildings are all acts of terrorism. Skin color, religion, nationality, head gear, does not matter. This country has it's share of terrorism. Most is not called such. And our government, with all its spy agencies, doesn't seem to know before hand anything is going to happen. Except for 9/11. They knew and and stopped and otherwise hindered investigations.

^*Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam.

[Blue_Tires]

28. Because you want to save that designation for politically motivated shootings

Wade Michael Page, Jared Lee Loughner, etc.

[rrneck]

32. Maybe they should be.

Of course, if they are "terrorism" we have to ask what the objectives of the shooters might be and whose side you should be on. It gets pretty complicated in the real world.

http://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Shootings-Workplace-Rebellions/dp/159376264X
American workers and children are rebelling violently all around us. Going Postal explores the rage-murder phenomenon that has both plagued and baffled America for the last three decades, offering provocative answers to the oft-asked question, "Why?" By juxtaposing the historical place of rage in America with the social climate that has existed since the 1980s—when Reaganomics began to widen the gap between executive and average-worker earnings—Ames crafts a convincing argument that these schoolyard and office massacres can be seen as modern-day slave rebellions. He explores numerous fascinating and unexpected cases in detail, showing that as with slave rebellions, these massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes even inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Taking up where Bowling for Columbine left off, this book seeks to set these murders in their proper context, thereby revealing their true meaning. Ames updates this edition with an eye toward recent events, including several new essays taking on the violent episodes at Northern Illinois and Virginia Tech universities, as well as workplace outrages like that in Alabama in March 2009. With the economy slumping and shooting rampages seemingly on the rise, Ames’s wide-scoped explanations have never been more prudent.

An interesting OP in light of this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024419822

[polichick]

34. Because gun manufacturers wouldn't like that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. Because they seldom involve political motivation or intent.

Simple as that, really...

[MO_Moderate]

43. Why aren't dogs called cats?

[Capt. Obvious]

44. Possibly because

Race Matters: Study Claims White Men Are More Likely To Commit Mass Murders Than Blacks Or Any Other Racial Group

[One_Life_To_Give]

45. Intent

Terrorism is about intending to create fear in a larger group. Presumably to coerce some action or inaction.

Shooting involving 4 or more fatalities include domestic disputes, gang activity as well as the spree killer and terrorist. The former cases are not normally intent on causing fear and inaction by the large body public. Whereas an IRA Bombing of a British Military Post, was intent to cause fear on the part of British soldiers and the Public in England.

[Xithras]

46. Terrorism is designed to send a message beyond the incident itself.

A ideological extremist walks onto a schoolyard and shoots 20 children as a "warning" to Americans that "his message" must be heeded, or more children will die.

A mentally unstable idiot walks onto a schoolyard and shoots 20 children simply because he hates the world.

The first situation is terrorism. The second situation is not. Although the actual crime committed in the two situations is identical, the motivation and intent of the shooter defines the act as terrorism.

[KittyWampus]

70. Suicidal terrorists don't have to intend to make political statements. School shooting ARE terrorism

I posted this article from the NYTimes repeatedly but DU'ers generally prefer to read stuff that reinforces their preconcieved ideas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/what-drives-suicidal-mass-killers.html?_r=0

[Union Scribe]

85. Yes, I think the threat of more to come

is one of the keys to defining terrorism.

[Yavin4]

47. I proposed this very question on DU after CT school shooting.

Apparently, it's only terrorism if muslims are involved.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Because the majority of them are *not* terrorism.

Words have meanings, you can't just pick the most politically convenient one.

Terrorism does not just mean "killing large numbers of people", it means, very roughly, "violence with the goal of terrorising people into acting in accordance with your ideology".

Most mass shootings in the USA are not terrorism.

[Lost_Count]

51. Sure would be convenient to label your...

... Political enemies with a term that would let you impose your will.

Who else do we know that did that? Hmmmmm

[bowens43]

52. because it isn't terrorism.

terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

[liberal N proud]

53. Do the shooting inflict terror on a group of people?

If you answer yes to that question, then the shooter would be terrorist and the acts would be terrorism.

But we like to reserve the word terrorist for people from the mid-east who perform violence.

[hugo_from_TN]

55. Did you read any reponses to the thread?

Words have meanings.

[oldhippie]

58. Words mean ....

.. what people want them to mean. At least to some people around here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. I think what they want the word to mean is --

"Treat Group X as a terrorist threat so they can be treated like terrorists, i.e. assets seized by executive writ, secret courts, indeterminate jail sentences and an armed military response from any of the group that protest."

I swear they're almost salivating to see Special Forces deployed against Americans.

[upaloopa]

56. Gun proponents? Rather PC isn't it?

IMHO if you can't see the tragedy we face in this country because of gun violence you're a sick mo fo not a gun proponent. You're more like a death proponent.

[KurtNYC]

57. Because there is no poltical agenda tied to them

Terrorism - (noun) 1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

[Hoyt]

80. Wouldn't that include radical tbaggers arming up "to take their country back?"

[TBF]

64. Further, why isn't the NRA classfied as a terrorist

organization for supporting this nonsense.

[petronius]

65. 'Terrorism' and 'treason' are two of the words that too many people are

too eager to misuse and expand the definition of...


(On edit: for clarity, I know that "treason" wasn't included in the linked article; I add it as another misused word that comes to my mind in discussions like this.)

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. Alternative: Ignorant as to the definition of... n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

66. Define "mass", then tell me why you wouldn't call EVERY shooting "terrorism".

Shoot one, it's NOT terrorism, shoot two, five, ten, it IS?

[KittyWampus]

69. They are… it's called SUICIDAL TERRORISM.

[Skip Intro]

71. That's some poorly-done bullshit there.

That mall shooting last week wasn't a "mass shooting."

The "school shooting" here in SC a few days ago was gang violence.

The homicidal "fatal shootings" in this country are mostly inner city gang violence, which is spreading.

I'm glad to see MSNBC, which takes us from "mass shootings" to "school shootings" to "fatal shootings" in two paragraphs, before calling "such incidents" (what incidents???) "terrorist attacks" is keeping up the good fight, but they make it crystal clear here that the only way to attack 2A supporters is by some shoddy shell game of half-truths, misdirection, and flat-out bullshit.

[Electric Monk]

72. "That's him! He's the terrorist!"

[Pathwalker]

75. A man was convicted of terrorism in Michigan this week, and no one died.

Crazy dude shot up cars driving down the freeway, a few people were injured, but no one died. It happened over a few weeks, and people were terrified to drive the freeways. So, they convicted him of terrorism.

[Union Scribe]

84. Makes sense to me.

I remember that story. I'm glad they caught the bastard. It reminds me of the, far more deadly, Beltway Sniper shootings. That's terrorism, no doubt.

[X_Digger]

77. Why aren't apples called oranges?

Answer: because words have meanings.

[elleng]

78. because terrorism is defined as

'the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal'

[Hoyt]

81. Tbaggers arming up "to take their country back."

[Agnosticsherbet]

79. Terrorism is violence with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments

for ideological or political reasons.

The Oklahoma City Bombing, 911, the Beltway snipers, and the Boston Marathon attack were acts of terrorism.

Most of the mass killings we have seen do not fit that definition. Their motivations are actually quite different.