They are not "shooters" - they are terrorists

[Igel]

42. So you want a different definition of "terrorist."

In other words, you like the connation of the word and want to leverage it while assigning it a new denotation in order to get people to agree (or to emote).

Personally, I don't like distorting language.

"Terrorist" has a meaning and I'm not willing to call the KC shooters that any more than I'm willing to call the two guys that walked into a diner and killed 4 people (including my cousin) and wounded others "terrorists." They were dignity-clad angry young men with bad attitudes that couldn't settle a disagreement because they'd never been taught reasonable conflict resolution skills by their parents and families but instead bought into the all-too-common idea that "real men" are inflexible and are permitted to use violence to settle verbal disagreements. That their mothers defended them and said they were "good boys" in calling the accusers "racist" did them a disservice. But they had no intent to intimidate the diner's patrons. They just wanted to preserve their sense of dignity and self-worth by not backing down and demonstrating it by being piss-poor shots and indifferent to anybody else. (Both shooters aimed at each other but each walked away unharmed.)