Not an American. Just asking, because there’s a clear difference. Active shooters and terrorists are fundamentally different people, guided by different motives.
An active shooter absolutely can be a terrorist (and usually are). It just means they are shooting indiscriminately in an attack, meaning not only at police/rival gangs/military etc. Terrorist just means they commit their attacks for idealogical reasons. The cross section between the two are enormous. I think the only time an active shooter is not a terrorist is if they have had a break from reality and think regular people are some kind of enemy or they simply want to take others out sadistically for nihilism or infamy or something. I would guess that well over 90% of “active shooters” have some idealogical reason for their attacks (incels, nationalists, religious or racist, etc). Active shooter is really a tactical term used by responders to indicate it is not a targeted event and the term is only relevant during the shooting/response. Afterwards you refer to them as a “mass shooter”. I know it’s pedantic but these terms all have real meanings and are important for criminologists for classification purposes.
This is vastly incorrect. Only a small portion (12%) of active or mass shooters were found to have been motivated by ‘hate or ideology’. Of which almost none were charged with terrorism, and fewer still convicted for it.
You’re mixing up two entirely separate phenomena. As you can plainly see at the linked source (and many others), the overlap of active shooters and terrorists is practically non-existent, contrary to your claim of it being ‘enormous’.
Nope. You are now conflating mass shooter with active shooter. A mass shooting is not always an event where the shooter(s) is targeting random individuals. A gang related shooting is considered a mass shooting, but the perpetrators aren’t just shooting at random people. These are the most common forms of mass shootings. Although in those events it is sadly very common for bystanders to be shot as well (but that is not the purpose or primary motivation for the shooters).
Cool story, but again you miss the point of my correction: active shooter is a tactical term and does not equate to classification terms like terrorist or mass shooter. Active shooter has no actual meaning once the shooting event ends. It does not address their motive, it only classifies their actions as targeting random (or seemingly random) victims. It exists so police and other responders know that anyone in the area is likely at risk if they are seen. As opposed to only police or only specific targeted victims.
One is worse than the other. Terrorists are trying to effect political change through the use of terror. The attack is designed to affect a population.
This is an armed bank robbery. He’s trying to steal money. The only people involved are those on site.
Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature
I’d say, anyone storming parliament has plenty political goals
Part 1 of the ATA amended the Criminal Code to create a new chapter dealing specifically with terrorism. A core provision in this chapter is the definition of “terrorist activity”, which has two components and applies to activities inside or outside Canada. Satisfying either component constitutes a “terrorist activity”.
The first component of the definition is defined in part as an act or omission committed in or outside Canada that would be an offence under the major international treaties that apply to terrorist activities, like hijacking and terrorist bombing.
The second part defines “terrorist activity” as an act or omission undertaken, inside or outside Canada, for a political, religious or ideological purpose that is intended to intimidate the public with respect to its security, including its economic security, or to compel a person, government or organization (whether inside or outside Canada) from doing or refraining to do any act, and that intentionally causes one of a number of specified forms of serious harm.
Found the American
Not an American. Just asking, because there’s a clear difference. Active shooters and terrorists are fundamentally different people, guided by different motives.
An active shooter absolutely can be a terrorist (and usually are). It just means they are shooting indiscriminately in an attack, meaning not only at police/rival gangs/military etc. Terrorist just means they commit their attacks for idealogical reasons. The cross section between the two are enormous. I think the only time an active shooter is not a terrorist is if they have had a break from reality and think regular people are some kind of enemy or they simply want to take others out sadistically for nihilism or infamy or something. I would guess that well over 90% of “active shooters” have some idealogical reason for their attacks (incels, nationalists, religious or racist, etc). Active shooter is really a tactical term used by responders to indicate it is not a targeted event and the term is only relevant during the shooting/response. Afterwards you refer to them as a “mass shooter”. I know it’s pedantic but these terms all have real meanings and are important for criminologists for classification purposes.
This is vastly incorrect. Only a small portion (12%) of active or mass shooters were found to have been motivated by ‘hate or ideology’. Of which almost none were charged with terrorism, and fewer still convicted for it.
Source: https://www.theviolenceproject.org/databases/key-findings
You’re mixing up two entirely separate phenomena. As you can plainly see at the linked source (and many others), the overlap of active shooters and terrorists is practically non-existent, contrary to your claim of it being ‘enormous’.
Nope. You are now conflating mass shooter with active shooter. A mass shooting is not always an event where the shooter(s) is targeting random individuals. A gang related shooting is considered a mass shooting, but the perpetrators aren’t just shooting at random people. These are the most common forms of mass shootings. Although in those events it is sadly very common for bystanders to be shot as well (but that is not the purpose or primary motivation for the shooters).
The website I linked tracks mass shootings, but does not include gang-related shootings. It takes like under 3 minutes of reading to know that.
Cool story, but again you miss the point of my correction: active shooter is a tactical term and does not equate to classification terms like terrorist or mass shooter. Active shooter has no actual meaning once the shooting event ends. It does not address their motive, it only classifies their actions as targeting random (or seemingly random) victims. It exists so police and other responders know that anyone in the area is likely at risk if they are seen. As opposed to only police or only specific targeted victims.
It’s okay, we all get words mixed up sometimes.
“Just” implies that one is worse than the other - as if people didn’t die either way
One is worse than the other. Terrorists are trying to effect political change through the use of terror. The attack is designed to affect a population.
This is an armed bank robbery. He’s trying to steal money. The only people involved are those on site.
Tell that to those on-site - they are dead either way
Canada had a shooter storm parliament who wasn’t a terrorist.
Fbi definition:
I’d say, anyone storming parliament has plenty political goals
Pick a lane dude
They’re using a definition an American should accept. If you want an American to agree with you, you don’t provide the KGB’s definition.
Who needs the American to agree to anything? This happened in Montreal
😆
As if what the US says matters at all.
Also it has to be part of a group.
Terrorism is a non-government organization using violence to achieve political goals.