Harris campaign office damaged by gunfire in Arizona - eviltoast
  • Xanis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I feel it’s’s almost certainly retaliation for perceived wrongs. What it accomplishes will depend on the person. Some will see it as scare tactics, others as a warning, more as stupidity, and others besides.

    Let’s just hope it’s not an early herald of more.

    • neclimdul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I understand I might not be asking the right person but what’s the difference between terrorism and a warning when it involves deadly force?

      • Xanis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Intent, mostly. Other than that, not much. Because we can only assume why, even if it’s easy enough to come up with answers, it’s best to not leap to conclusions. I might be missing info though .

        • neclimdul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I guess I don’t see the difference. If you are warning someone with a gun, the warning is that they willl use the gun. Legally that might not always be “terrorism” but the effect is the same so seems like we call it what it is.

          • bbuez@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Last I checked, brandishing a weapon is not any more legal, nor is negligent discharge of a weapon.