Terrorism and mass shootings/ school shootings

Are there common threads?

Offer your thoughts.

No, terrorism is more, let's say notable, at least in Europe I guess. Also not all terrorists are wannabe mass shooters, the murder of Samuel Paty can be considered a terror attack, but if far from a mass attack, let alone from a mass shootings. I guess I like to note the difference between no terrorist mass shootings and terrorist mass shootings, because usually people like to talk more about the political or religious views that lead to this attacks, since I guess is much easier to understand why this happen, than if it was just a crazy dude that decided to stab or shot some people. I guess in countries where isnt easy to have weapons, terrorism can have more deaths, than attacks by crazy people or people who hate society or whatever, since usually terrorism can be well planned (there is a lot of cases where it is not) and usually the motivation is more general than someone with a mental illness, I guess. So I guess is easier to form terrorists than mental ill mass attackers. But that is my opinion, I guess.

Killisaki wrote:

No, terrorism is more, let's say notable, at least in Europe I guess. Also not all terrorists are wannabe mass shooters, the murder of Samuel Paty can be considered a terror attack, but if far from a mass attack, let alone from a mass shootings. I guess I like to note the difference between no terrorist mass shootings and terrorist mass shootings, because usually people like to talk more about the political or religious views that lead to this attacks, since I guess is much easier to understand why this happen, than if it was just a crazy dude that decided to stab or shot some people. I guess in countries where isnt easy to have weapons, terrorism can have more deaths, than attacks by crazy people or people who hate society or whatever, since usually terrorism can be well planned (there is a lot of cases where it is not) and usually the motivation is more general than someone with a mental illness, I guess. So I guess is easier to form terrorists than mental ill mass attackers. But that is my opinion, I guess.

Thanks for answering .
I was thinking more in terms of mental health, social factors etc. Allthough, I see mass shootings and terrorism as usually separate.

Norwegian wrote:

Killisaki wrote:

No, terrorism is more, let's say notable, at least in Europe I guess. Also not all terrorists are wannabe mass shooters, the murder of Samuel Paty can be considered a terror attack, but if far from a mass attack, let alone from a mass shootings. I guess I like to note the difference between no terrorist mass shootings and terrorist mass shootings, because usually people like to talk more about the political or religious views that lead to this attacks, since I guess is much easier to understand why this happen, than if it was just a crazy dude that decided to stab or shot some people. I guess in countries where isnt easy to have weapons, terrorism can have more deaths, than attacks by crazy people or people who hate society or whatever, since usually terrorism can be well planned (there is a lot of cases where it is not) and usually the motivation is more general than someone with a mental illness, I guess. So I guess is easier to form terrorists than mental ill mass attackers. But that is my opinion, I guess.

Thanks for answering .
I was thinking more in terms of mental health, social factors etc. Allthough, I see mass shootings and terrorism as usually separate.

In terms of social factors, that radicalization can happen to normal individuals or small time criminals in prison, either because of both disafistacion of the western society, not really because it is western, but more because they feel ignored, by it and instead find like a system that if they kill people they will be worship as matrys. In my opinion, usually terrorists that didnt really grow up in a radical enviroment, can be viewed as response as being left by society or dissatisfied by it, and fell like they are nothing more that meaningless pieces of society, where it would matter if they were dead or not. And they can became radicalised for the thought of giving their life meaning or the fact the could change society with others, since I usually I see terrorism to create fear and to start change, a revolution of sorts. Then there is the mental problems, most likely there is some terrorists that would end up killing people even it they werent terrorists, like Omar Mateen, since like that guy has some violent tendecies, although perphaps they would create less of an "impact" I guess. And the a group that supports the killing of people and an mentally unstable guy that was connections or admires that group is a nice recipe for a terrorist, I guess. But that is my opinion I guess.

I feel like there's a significant amount of overlap in terms of the people who would commit either action, in terms of psychological makeup.