Page A8 in Wednesday’s War Street journal: “Czech Republic, Shooter Kills 8, Then Self,at Restaurant.”
The short article goes on to say the act wasn’t believed to be an act of terrorism. OK. So the diners there were just sitting around sipping soup in total peace and contentment while this maniac sprayed death and destruction through their midst?
This distortion of our language seems intentionally designed to force more power into the hands of the benevolent state. (“Benevolent” being the sarcastic portion of this message.)
alternativebyfritz 
I suspect the difference is between “terrorism” and “Terrorism”, the latter of which I despise with all my heart as it’s been used to justify so much awful in the world (with little redemption) and is so broad as to blanket anything people choose to drape it upon.
The distinction in the case above NOT being “terror-istic” I imagine comes from the motivation of the shooter (assuming that we know it), and it being something like, “the shooter was depressed/distressed/etc.” versus, “the shooter was motivated by religious hate/zealoutism/etc.”. That’s how I read it.
Nevertheless, whatever the motivation, it’s an awful situation and I hate when something like this gets reduced to a discussion of whether or not it was terrorism, or blah, or blah, and instead addressing the fact that there’s a roomful of victims (and their associated families) that deserve our sympathies and concern.
And who is to say hundreds of thousands on Iraqis were not terrorized from our more sophisticated and remotely controlled weapons.