In light of recent events in Brooklyn New York New York

@windinhishair That is a totally unrealistic scenario.

Is it just me? @windinhishair

@justanothername Yes, it is totally unrealistic, but this is what many second amendment folks would love to see.

@Graylight Ahh .. I'm old and easily confused.

@ChipmunkErnie I feel the same way each morning. 😉

@Graylight It's morning? I thought that moon was unusually bright.

@spjennifer Yup, it's the "political aims" that defines the act as terrorism.

@Vin53 "Bloodlust" isn't really a thing.

@spjennifer My guess (and it's just a guess) is this, especially if it turns out to be the 62-year-old suspect they're looking for; You'll find a history of work-related failures (lost job, disciplinary action, lay-offs), a divorce or widower situation and likely grown children. This is a man who has, for years, cataloged grievances and curated a revenge list that got so detailed it eventually just ended up being mankind, so he decided to punish the accused. He'll turn himself in because he's got no relatives to assist him or he'll see the end coming and take control of the one thing he feels he has power over. And yes, that's terrorism when it results in a mass shooting. You're spot on about that.

@Graylight

[quote]"Bloodlust" isn't really a thing. [/quote]

As someone who served for 35+ years and in many war zones, I can tell you that it is something that exists in certain types of characters and I have seen and served with some of them. It is unusual and the Military usually weeds out people like that but I could see where there would be people with similar character traits in civilian society. I have taken lives when it was necessary for survival but to be able to do that indiscriminately to seemingly innocent civilians is beyond my scope of comprehension and probably has more to do with mental illness than anything.
I suspect you are correct in that this is an individual with a grudge to settle against those he feels "wronged" him in some way and is now settling the score in similar fashion to the people who "go postal" but the fact that he attacked random people in a subway instead of targeting specific individuals is what makes this "terrorism" in my mind, despite the probable lack of a political or religious motivation...

That's nonsensical, an active shooter is a present danger and there's no politics involved. You puke.

@Crazywaterspring

@Crazywaterspring Except the government didn't call it terrorism, right? There is that.

@MrBlueGuy Whether it was some guy having gone off the deep end, gang related, or terrorism, the legal term is still terrorism.

@LordShadowfire I don't think that's the case. If some gang banger shoots off an uzi in a crowd of people trying to kill a specific person and kills 6 other people in the process I don't think that's an act of terrorism. They weren't trying to cause terror they're just a bad marksman. It's certainly still murder but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would call it terrorism. I'm not saying that's the case here at all all the facts that have come out seem to point to someone trying to just kill as many people as possible they probably just went to the new Batman movie and felt inspired or something but I think the term terrorism is broadly applied to anyone that goes off and kills people.

@strongbow If it had been under Trump there would have been a whole lot more shooting and much more unnecessary carnage.

@justanothername what kind of coolant have you been drinking my guy?

@Ozuye502 None. I know the difference in political views between Republicans and Democrats.