Beyond the Bomb: Why Mass Shootings Prevail in US Domestic Terrorism

The question of why certain forms of domestic terrorism, such as mass shootings, appear more prevalent than others, like bombings of infrastructure, prompts a multifaceted exploration of underlying factors.

Skill vs. Accessibility in Violence

One significant distinction often drawn is the practical skill required for different types of attacks. It is argued that successfully employing explosives to cause widespread damage is a highly specialized skill. Historical examples, such as the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski), a math PhD, illustrate that even with advanced intellect, it took over a decade to consistently create effective mail bombs. In contrast, mass shootings are considered to be within the reach of a broader segment of the population, requiring less specialized knowledge or elaborate planning regarding weaponry beyond acquiring firearms. This difference in accessibility and required expertise might contribute to the observed patterns of violence.

Historical Context: Surveillance and Terrorism Rates

Examining the historical landscape of domestic terrorism in the US reveals interesting trends. Rates were notably high in the late 1960s and approached 400 reported domestic attacks annually by 1970. This period coincided with increased government surveillance of Americans by agencies like the FBI, CIA, and US Army. However, a significant shift occurred after the Church Committee investigations in the early 1970s exposed these unconstitutional spying operations. Following directives for the FBI to cease illegal surveillance and refocus on its law enforcement mandate, domestic terrorism rates sharply declined through the 1980s and have remained historically low ever since. This historical correlation suggests that extensive domestic surveillance might not necessarily lead to greater safety from terrorism; in fact, its curtailment seemed to precede a decrease in such incidents.

The Nuance of Poverty's Role

The initial premise that high levels of poverty directly correlate with incidents of infrastructure bombing is also subject to scrutiny. Some argue that while concerns about social mobility and economic inequality are valid for various groups, the average US population may not be as "poor" as presumed. For instance, statistics indicating that roughly two-thirds of the population earns above $50,000 individually, with median living costs around $61,000 for a couple, suggest a nuanced economic landscape where widespread extreme poverty may not be the sole or primary driver for specific forms of organized political violence. The discussion acknowledges that economic struggles exist and raise social concerns but questions their direct link to a particular type of terrorist act.

The Evolving Face of Political Violence

Furthermore, the very definition and manifestation of domestic terrorism are seen as having evolved. The "classic ideal" of an underground cell engaged in asymmetric warfare for concrete political gains, reminiscent of groups like the IRA, is considered by some to be largely absent today. Instead, contemporary incidents might occur within a complex dynamic that some suggest could involve varying degrees of foreknowledge or even encouragement from intelligence communities. This perspective posits a "fungal ecosystem" where a combination of overlapping responsibilities and incentives might redirect potential coherent resistance towards nihilistic individual acts of violence. This approach, while not always preventing civilian deaths, is seen by some as successfully containing broader, organized political threats by focusing on identifying and intervening with isolated individuals.