04-29-2019, 12:24 PM
(04-29-2019, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Exactly.
One side will say it is, one side will say it is not and all so they can skew their "statistics" about shootings and their politics on terrorism or gun control depending on their argument.
Then why start a snarky thread about this that is seemingly dismissive of the idea that this isn't a mass shooting?
(04-29-2019, 12:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's why I had the question in the first place. I see this being referred to as "shooting" but he clearly intended to shoot more people he just failed. If a bomb is placed by a someone because of religion and it doesn't go off or doesn't kill or hurt anyone is it a terrorist attack or just an attack?
But that is a different issue. A failed terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack. What makes an attack a terrorist attack is a bit easier to distinguish, IMO, than the line drawn to determine an attack is a mass whatever. Terrorism by its nature still has some degree of success even with no casualties where as your "run of the mill" mass murder/shooting/whatever fails without them. Terrorism is also more easily defined than drawing this distinction and trying to qualitatively define something like this is more off-putting for society as a whole.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
