The domestic terrorism criteria of acts that are a violation of state or local law that are dangerous was kind of added through various riders into unrelated legislation aimed at slipping in parts of the DSEA, which many called Patriot II, into law.Current law in the US defines domestic terrorism as "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 (a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (c) 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." International terrorism is defined in similar terms.
The earlier criteria involving the use of unlawful force aimed at furthering a political agenda that don't include government officials (from what I remember, that was a criteria so as to avoid any acts of war from being labeled as terrorist acts). It'd still fit regardless of which criteria were used.
AgreedI think sadly politicians and the media take advantage of tragedies like this to push their agenda
Well, not all serial killers have motivations that are political. I suppose you could call a serial killer with a political motivation as being a terrorist, though it's not usually done.Is there really a difference between targeting somebody because of their religion vs the color of their hair (like a number of serial killers)?
The definition of serial killer changed over the years
- Initially they were all considered mass-murder, though the Germans created the term Serienmorder in 1930, the term "serial killer" was coined in the US in 1971 though the term "series murders" might have been used prior to "serial murder".
- When the criteria of serial-murder was branched off from mass-murder: The criteria included three murders with a cooling-off period between each murder (there was also a criteria called "spree-murder")
- In 2005, they changed the definition to: The unlawful killing of two or more people by the same offenders, at separate events: The number required was reduced from three to two to make it easier for the FBI to intercede in matters, and the cooling off period was removed because nobody really could arrive at a consensus of what qualified as a cooling-off period.
- As a result spree-murders (this included three murders without a cooling off period) were now considered serial killers.
That's kind of what I meant when I said quite a number seemed more personality disordered, than they seemed mentally ill.mikewint said:That's because the root causes are very difficult, time consuming and expensive to deal with and require much more than just passing a simple law.
Consider some of the basic commonalities among "mass shooters"
Mass shooters invariably exhibit an unbroken series of disappointments, frustrations and letdowns. Typically, these may start as early as grade school or high school, and continue into college, a business or a profession. Typically they have failed at nearly everything they tried to accomplish in life. . . . never blame themselves or their actions for their failures. Instead, they hold some group — or society as a whole — as being responsible for their lack of success. . . . Mass shooters invariably exhibit a very high degree of self-centeredness that precludes empathy for other people. Mass shooters lack compassion. They see their victims as mere symbols for something they want to annihilate.
Correct, in some cases, this isolation is from social rejection itself -- if nobody will hang around you, you will not have social support. In other cases of school-shooters, you have people who want to be popular and can't quite pull it off, so they won't hang out with people who they seen as beneath them; by adult age: The issue would involve loners that, as you described, were either never married, divorced, or alienated from their families.Social isolation is probably the number one common denominator among mass shooters.
Though you mention social media, these things occurred even before most of these sites came online. There was one case that I posted earlier, dated November 12, 1966 (that one surprised me actually, because it was such an early case, that also had such a well defined motive that could apply just as well modern day).
The character of the media has made things greatly worse. In the olde days, there weren't dedicated news-media outlets like CNN; there were TV stations that, as part of their duty, required them to broadcast the news for one hour. It was generally a loss-leader. It's now classified as entertainment, and whenever something horrible happens they dive into it, and they focus on the killer, not the victims. They go on and on about this person, and what drove him/her to kill.
Last edited: