A terrible precedent is being set with guns in public places...

[Dragonfli]

40. I think they are using the legal definition rather than a definition based on the effects of the act

I imagine you are both "right" but one of you more than the other in a practical sense.

The act of displaying weapons openly in a crowd that are known to kill and maim rather than to bake bread may be legal in some crazy countries, like Somalia and the US, but they still cause fear and terror among those that are smart enough to know what those objects are used for in a crowd setting (designed for in fact), just as walking around a supermarket with a few machetes and a sword strapped across ones back would cause those near you to fear for their safety, so too will weapons designed to cause even more damage to one's body.

It is common sense to realize that causing fear and terror among a crowd of people in order to further a political or religious goal is terrorism. To be charged for the crime is a thing that lawyers discuss as if common sense were meaningless (often laws have nothing to do with common sense). The law does not apparently recognize such acts of terrorism, even if most people do.

You are both right, one of you is right in the legal sense and the other is right according to common sense.

Personally I believe the act of causing terror to further a political goal is to act as a terrorist even if it doesn't meet the legal requirements to be charged with the act committed, but I admit that others see objects of death and destruction as beautiful artful things they covet and so feel desire and longing rather than fear resulting in a differing view than mine.