Yeah, I could have worded that better. I didn’t mean literally gave up; I just meant that so many people have continued to fight for racism, with words, actions, and laws, ever since that date.
But I their argument is really that they should have John McClane there. It’s pure fantasy.
Science fiction story idea: one of these shooters is apprehended on their way to their crime scene, before they can kill anyone. Someone equipped to do so, interviews them to see if they have been brainwashed like a manchurian candidate. Turns out, most of these shooters are fancy IEDs, programmed to detonate on signal, tossed into the news cycle just to keep the electorate on edge.
Sadly, I get what you’re saying.
On sifting through the first details, part of me heaved a sigh of relief and thought “Well, at least this time, the killer wasn’t explicitly shouting anti-semitic | racist | homophobic slurs, or specifically killing children, so this one’s not so bad.”
And the rest of my psyche was horrified that thought crossed my mind 
Since this occurred in the US let’s look at the definition of domestic terrorism in the US code, specifically Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, § 2331. The definition of international terrorism is a bit earlier on that page, but the key part (B) is the same.
(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C ) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Was the intent of this shooter to intimidate or coerce? Was the intent to affect the conduct of the government? I don’t know. I’m not sure if we will ever know.
Well, wikipedia aside, are you feeling terrorized? I sure am…
Violence needs to be evaluated on its impact, not so much its intention. This community is far behind the curve on that math.
Were they actually “declared” wars, or just sort of legal genocide?
They were not formally declared by Congress, but they were supported and financed by Congress with active participation of the US Army. My point was that the Civil War was not the only armed conflict to take place in the US. I was responding to this:
War was a constant during the American expansion to the West from the Declaration of Independence to the early 20th century. This country has been violent for a long time and guns have been used to expand its territory. Gun culture is deeply ingrained into the American way of life.
this man has a ton of experience with reporting and the use of language, and he feels the same way i do.
Not to sound like a pedant, but I’ve always considered the line between mass murder and terrorism like the line between riots and revolutions: The former is a horrible spasm, while the latter is pre-planned to have some ultimate goal or effect. A lot of these ammo-spewing extroverted suicides don’t have much of a plan beyond, like a bee, attacking what made them angry in a way that involves their death. And thank God If one of these schmucks could plan enough for a post-spree exit strategy to live and kill another day, we’ be in much worse shape.
Again feeling terrorized isn’t the key thing. The key thing is the person terrorizing you for a certain kind of reason. With a specific kind of motivation or to trigger a particular response (beyond fear) from society or government.
A rogue bear can terrorize a community. But there aren’t any bear terrorists.
Take Dylan Roof as an example. He’s underniably a terrorist, that provides as nice clear example of what we’re talking about. He had a specific socio-political motivation, white supremecy. He had a specific response he wanted to trigger, specifically he hoped to trigger a race war. He selected a target, a black church associated with the civil Rights movement, that he felt would maximize the chances of that. And maximize terror in a specific target group.
If this guy shot up that bar because he disliked country music to an excessive extent. Or because he wanted to die, but make sure people remembered him and the way he went out. Or because the neighbor’s dog told him murdering people would make his penis work. You’re not really talking about terrorism.
If on the other hand he had a history with an Anti-Country music movement and sought to prompt an Anti-Country backlash. You’re talking terrorism.
These days with the size of isolated radical actors. We’re often left in a significant grey area. A lot of these solo shooters are definitely terrorishts. You look at both the Pulse Nightclub shooter. And the San Bernardino Shooters. They openly ascribed their attacks to terrorist goals and connected them to terrorist groups. But there seems to be little to no direct contact with the groups credited. And the targets were deeply personal, and there were obvious personal motivations. These attacks are clearly terror attacks, it’s just they don’t fit the mold. And it isn’t terribly clear if they’re truly connected to a movement, or even broader ideology.
With Vegas. You’ve got an older white guy, with a clear interest in guns. With at least some connections to beliefs that commonly drive terrorist actions. Executing a carefully planned, highly organized attack. All of that is plainly terroristy. But there is a complete lack of clear statements from the shooter, and really thin history of political activity.
Terrorists want to be understood. They want their motivation to be known. They leave statements and manifestos. They pick targets that highlight their motivations. They leave a trail of interactions that make their beliefs and motivations relatively clear. In Vegas we have none of that. It’s the one thing that makes me think that shooting may not have been terrorism. And what sort of defines this grey area is that you’re never going to find out.
Your statement was a little greyer and I initially was going to skip it, but added it on the pile when replying to the other comment.
Like I said, I get the intention was loaded with sarcasm, but unlike other times this line is used, there actually was a good guy with a gun and he not only failed to stop this, but died in the process - apparently because his gun wasn’t big enough according to the other comment.
I get that, hence acknowledging the frustration. And while I even agree it is a flawed premise to begin with, it is true sometimes - just not in this case. And while I get the attacks were aimed at this flawed premise - because we are talking about a real world occurrence, not a hypothetical, one can substitute the “good guy with a gun” for an actual person. It makes for a rather calloused remark at the very least. One can certainly take it as blaming this person for not stopping it, even while acknowledging the sarcasm. YMMV.
Maybe I’m just being too sensitive. I just can’t imagine hearing the news of someone I know being killed while trying to defend themselves or their famiily and replying with, “But they were a good person with a gun! That’s unpossible!”
I read somewhere that a big difference between Canada and the US was that the Mounties were at the forefront of expansion across Canada; as a result, whenever Canadian settlers arrived anywhere, they found the law waiting for them. While, in the US, the law had to play catch up. This is probably a gross simplification, of course. 
ah, joined oct 15th. i get it now - you are a troll
Violence needs to be evaluated on its impact, not so much its intention
You cherry-picked my opening phrase, and completely ignored the rest, focusing on the stated intention of the perps. Why, do you think, is intention so much more important than impact?
Some of the folks at the bar were also at the Harvest County Music Festival last October.
Make of that what you will 
… says the person who joined on Sep 10th …
/side_eye
Can you imagine? I’m not sure I’d ever leave the house again if I’d survived one mass shooting only to find myself in the middle of another.
My friends and friends of friends that are still in TO are posting the shooter’s alleged address. If they’re correct, he was only a few blocks from my best friend’s parents.
Yeah, their premise for the argument is that having a gun makes you bulletproof and/or psychic - able to magically stop bullets from hitting you and others from a threat you don’t yet know exists - while also not granting those abilities to any would-be attackers.
