To families of mass-shooting victims in U.S., Paris attacks sadly familiar.

[TalkingDog]

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151120/PC16/151129944

She has become painfully familiar with mass shootings since a gunman killed her daughter in a crowded suburban Denver movie theater, and she’s frustrated when pundits wonder if similar attacks on “soft targets” could happen in America.

“What ‘soft-target’ are you talking about? A school? Oh, gee, it’s already happened, several times. A movie theater? Oh, gee, it’s already happened,” Phillips said. “Who are we fooling? We’ve been living under terrorist attacks since Columbine. They’re just being done by our own people.”

I would argue that it's a lot further back than Columbine.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

[ck4829]

1. We need to start calling it RAOV

Random Act Of Violence:
* Attackers generally don't know their victims (Not an absolute though, some of the victims might be known)
* In fact, seems to be an attack against the collective, against 'the world'
* Bizarre manifestos, narcissistic rage, hypocrisy, etc.
* Self-termination or being killed by responders is the end goal

Words matter, "mass shooting" as done by the angry white kids is depoliticized and decontextualized, it's broken down and becomes "Ah well, it happens". The same thing as done by an angry Muslim is politicized to the extreme and the response needs to be heavy... we need to bomb somebody NOW.

RAOV encompasses both mass shootings and terrorist actions.

[linuxman]

2. Except mass shootings in America rarely meet the definition of terrorism.

It has a particular meaning, but some people use the word as a cudgel trying to evoke a response, as if the act of slaying dozens of people out of twisted narcissism and psychosis isn't horrifying enough.

[NutmegYankee]

3. People don't understand that distinction.

Terrorism uses violence to further a political goal. Most of the mass shootings have been rage at the world, so the person just harms innocent people as a "revenge" against the world.

[linuxman]

5. The thing is, it's not even that hard.

Without the violence or threat of violence being aimed at evoking policy response, political change, or a change in the populace's attitude, it's not terrorism. If the Aurora shooter was trying to start some sort of socialist uprising, that would be terrorism. If the Newtown shooter was trying to bring about a 4th reich, that would be terrorism. It's like people are be willfully ignorant.

[NutmegYankee]

6. A lot of people are strongly emotional on gun violence.

They want it to be treated like terrorism, so they call it terrorism, even though it is obviously not terrorism.

[davidn3600]

4. Motives are not the same

Terrorism usually has a political or religious motive to use fear to create some type of change or achieve some sort agenda.

The Charleston shootings are the closest you might be able to get to the definition of terrorism because Dylann Roof had a racially-motivated agenda. He wanted to start a civil war.

But other shooters like Adam Lanza or James Holmes or the Virginia Tech shooter or the shooting of the news crew had motives that really only made sense to the shooter. In some cases, we aren't even totally sure why they did it. Holmes seemed to have no motive at all.

We are playing with semantics here. But when talk about killing, we usually don't lump all killings in the same category. It's based on motives and the context. Even in legal context, not all murder is the same.

And by the way....shootings and killings have been going on long before Columbine. I don't know why so many people think that was the start of it all.

[Initech]

7. It's terrorism no matter which way you look at it.

Any time anyone wants to use any type of gun in any type of crowd, it's terrorism. Any time anyone passes legislation to get more guns on the streets and make it easier for criminals to get their hands on these weapons, that's terrorism. We can stop this vicious cycle. It may take a while, but it can be done.

[EX500rider]

8. Unless of course you know the meaning of the word..then it's not..

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism