Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Shootings at multiple sites kill 3, wound kids at school in Northern California; police say they [View all]One church shooting years ago was directed at very specific people. All the documentation shooter-side said he had a vendetta against a particular congregation. He killed more than he "required," but it's unclear why. Suspicion was he held grudges against those, too.
He had no animus for others in the church. Just locals. He wanted them dead. I don't see why he'd have thought beyond simple revenge to "widespread terror for doing me wrong" on the part of those who didn't do him wrong or know him.
And that's the problem with lone shooters versus those who are part of an organization. The very fact of being in an organization means that the shooter's goals might be shared by others; his claims, what he wants changed, if unfulfilled might prompt a repetition of the event. If the lone gunmen has a personal issue and is dead, it's unlikely John or Jane Doe will say, "You know, he's right--he was wronged, but he didn't kill these people over here, so I'm going to continue his good work to avenge him."
It's not that the shooter couldn't see widespread terror had he thought about it. It's a question as to whether he thought about it, had it as a goal, or even surmised, given all and only that he knew, that others would be terrified by what he did (as opposed to horrified). "Of course he would, if he was thinking clearly" is hardly a reasonable retort. Almost by definition the shooter isn't thinking clearly, as we would define it.