Domestic Terrorism and Its Dilemma With Domestic Mass Shootings in America

The United States has experienced an increasing number of mass shootings. Surviving suspects in those shootings are tried and, if convicted, punished pursuant to existing law. Yet mass shootings continue. What can be done to end mass shootings? Should such acts be treated as “domestic terrorism”? Some, but not all, states have enacted statutes defining and providing enhanced punishment for “domestic terrorism”. However, there is no federal statute that expressly prohibits “domestic terrorism.” Should there be a national statute that includes mass shootings as “domestic terrorism” and provides appropriate penalties for such acts? Whether to address mass shootings as acts of domestic terrorism” is a complex problem. It raises legal and political issues. Using interdisciplinary research, I analyzed the problem from the disciplinary perspectives of law and political science. I used qualitative research methodology, researching and analyzing scholarly sources, to identify insights in each discipline. Then, I sought common ground between the disciplinary insights and integrated those common insights in order to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. My research and analysis are not complete. However, I can conclude that given the increase in mass shootings and the inability to curb such acts pursuant to existing law, federal and state law can and should be amended to treat mass shootings as “domestic terrorism”. Further, I am able to conclude that from the disciplinary perspective of political science, public officials will likely benefit from supporting such legislation in an effort to reduce or eliminate mass shootings.