Bomber = "Terrorist;" Gunman = "Shooter"

[Empowerer]

Had this assailant strapped on a bomb or tossed an explosive into crowd and achieved the same number of casualties, he would have been called a terrorist without question.

But the fact that he used a gun to kill, maim and terrorize seems to have resulted in a different narrative.

I have no doubt that this partly stems from the very successful efforts to downplay the ravages of gun violence in order to forestall any - even the most reasonable - attempts to regulate firearms.

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Gunman = Assassin//// Federal judge at least.

[stranger81]

2. Unless the bomber is white (e.g. Timothy McVeigh)

in which case, he's still not a terrorist.

[Empowerer]

3. Excellent point

[jenmito]

4. Didn't the RWers call the Muslim military man who shot people at Ft. Hood a terrorist,

or at least call the shooting an "act of terrorism"?

[stray cat]

6. Progressives called the shooter a victim and mentally ill - I guess we liked him or disliked the vic

[jenmito]

7. Who said the shooter was a victim and we disliked the victims?

[DCKit]

8. Mentally Ill AND "Just your average teabagger". nt

[slampoet]

12. They also called the DC Snipers terrorists. Dark skin = terrorist > gun v. bomb

[stray cat]

5. In both cases - victims of successful attacks are dead

[hulka38]

9. Nicely done!

[Uzybone]

10. fly plane into WTC = terrorist

fly plane into IRS = frustrated, disgruntled

[Igel]

11. Community.

Often the definition of "terrorism" is fluid.

The government usually requires that it be linked to a broader movement that espouses violence in order to intimidate. A lone assassin--or even a few guys with guns and bombs--wouldn't be a terrorist. The Ft. Hood bomber, we were assured, wasn't terrorism. Until the motivation and connection with al-Awlaqi was disclosed. All of a sudden it was part of a larger program by Salafists to intimidate and--the word they often use--terrorize the West/non-Muslims/Xians.

The guy who ran his SUV into people outside the UNC-Chapel Hill (?) student center, the guy with the not-quite-exploding genitalia, the guy who shot up the El Al counter in LA have all been first declared non-terrorists and then, if a connection with some larger group or organization, however loose, was found he was redubbed a "terrorist" officially. Wasn't there also some Empire-State-Building gunwielder? And some guy in the NW--Seattle, was it?

Unofficially "terrorism" is used in a slightly different way. If a video, declaration, or writings were left to say that he was just targing certain kinds of people or defending the ummah (or some such import) then the guy, usually Muslim, was deemed to be acting at least in concert with a group. We see that effort in the anti-Copt church bombing, where the bombing was "orchestrated" by AQ because AQ had the church on a list of proposed targets posted on the Internet. Fox tends to extend it to anybody in a group they don't like. So if a white Catholic guy goes postal, it's not terrorism; if it's a Muslim, of whatever skin color, it must be. This isn't the usual media take on terrorism; some outlets try to avoid the term, even if the government uses it to refer to a guy who killed in concert with an identifiable and organized group.

I figure the Ft. Hood killer was a minimal terrorist. His goal wasn't so much to terrorize as to simply kill. But he fit the official definition well enough, and he was certainly acting as a Muslim out to kill those attacking Muslims. He was certainly influenced by a group, even if he wasn't explicitly acting as a member of that group.

A lot of people have pointed out that a killing that is a "hate crime" is rightfully more than just a simple murder because it has the effect of terrorizing and intimidating a community, even if that's not the intent. This is one rung below what I called the "unofficial" use of the word "terrorism." It's still targeting a group, but it's not usually done these days as part of a larger group, not in the same way as the Ft. Hood killer saw himself or Klansmen saw themselves decades ago. Here intent matters: They don't intend to terrorize any body else, usually, beyond those they're actively abusing. This greatly resembles Fox's use of "terrorist," just changing a few things around the edges.

Then there are those like McVeigh. And maybe Loughner. Not part of a group that's acting in concert to kill in order to intimidate. Like the initial assessment of the Ft. Hood killer and the final assessment of the El Al guy, and others he's essentially alone and just wanted to kill some people, perhaps specific people--and will continue to be considered a lone gunman until not just some association with a hateful group is produced but an affiliation to an actual group that advocates killing and has a coterie of people actually going out and killing, even if he's the first in that g group. Metaphor and symbolism don't count as "advocates killing", so don't point to crosshairs on a map. He certainly used a gun to kill. I don't think he intended to maim. I think he wanted to kill more people. I also doesn't think he wanted to terrorize. I think he wanted to kill more people.

It's not that he used a gun vs a bomb. It's not that he was white versus less pale forms of Caucasian. The narrative in which he used his weapon is different. For now, to call him a terrorist is to appeal to Fox News, acknowledging Fox news as your authority on the term.

As for gun regulation, I see few arguing for making it legal to carry concealed automatic weapons without a permit into bars and schools and courthouses, so at least one reasonable attempt to regulate firearms has not been forestalled and wouldn't be forestalled in any political environment in the US over the last 60 years. The quibble is over what constitutes "reasonable": Every use of the adjective as a modifier of eventive nouns requires a subject and other logical arguments. Reasonable to whom? When? For what purpose? Over that reasonable people can disagree, and do.