So, we have to ask: Was Stephen Paddock a terrorist?

[BumRushDaShow]

99. And you are dismissing what other types of "intent" should be considered

Again my argument is this narrow definition that is out there that is crafted to target certain demographics and give a pass to others, notably because it is never applied consistently and cop-outs are used.

If one "intends" to get attention, one can fire hundreds of shots in a crowd or even threaten to blow up a school. There are statues in every state that define a "terroristic threat". Yet when the "threat" is actually carried out, the rules "change", and some get called "terrorists" while others are called "lone wolves" or "mentally ill".

IMHO, every "mass shooting" should be considered a "terrorist attack". And although they feel like they are "common" due to the number of people impacted when they do happen, these incidences are a fraction of all homicides, and are sufficiently distinguishable from the others.

It's apparent that we will have to agree to disagree.