Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
As far as I am aware he is not a terrorist since he is not using terror to further a political agenda.

"Intervene"? What intervention would have made a difference in a country so awash with guns? Unless there are pre-crime laws where he can be locked up for the safety of society.

Intervention of the psychological or social services sort, when he was manifesting extremely problematic behaviors (before high school).


I'm getting ahead of things, but that my impression of what the details so far point to, that he perceived some enemies (minorities, women, etc) beyond individual animosity, and wanted (and planned for some time) to strike a blow at them in a public way. Most school/mass shooters off themselves when the rampage ends; perhaps those who don't are more likely to be politically or ideologically driven. It's nothing more than tentative, but this millenium is giving researchers so much to work with.

https://www.livescience.com/55076-sc...-shooters.html

Lone-wolf terrorists are less likely to be suicidal than public mass shooters in the U.S., Lankford told Live Science, but many lone wolves suffer from mental-health problems or personal crises that echo those seen in public mass shooters. A terrorist is defined as someone who uses violence in pursuit of political aims, whereas a public mass shooter is generally driven by more personal motivations.

However, these categories can blur and overlap, said Lankford. For example, the shooter who killed African-American congregants at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, ultimately was not charged with terrorism but rather a hate crime. That was a controversial decision, as many saw his desire to start a "race war" as a political motivation.