After observers started noticing that much of the media treats white shooters as mental cases and black shooters as terrorists, some began calling for equality and asking: should white shooters also be labeled as "terrorists"?
The anger at this hypocrisy is righteous; the proposed solution, utterly misguided.
To judge by his reported outcry during the murdering, the Charleston shooter in the black church (where, by the way, he was welcomed) is a racist. He couldn't have been more clear.
A terrorist wants to disrupt the authority of a government by showing it can't protect its citizens or to seek revenge against a government. At least since the infamous 9/11 events, "terrorist" has replaced "communist" as a universal term of abuse for an enemy or anyone who disrupts the public order.
Terrorists obviously do exist, but the Charleston shooter was not among them. He is apparently a self-confessed racist. A defense of racism has led to terror, as in the violent insurrection of the slave states against the national government, but this shooting was directed not against a government, but simply against black people, in this case against black people praying in a church.
Mental illness may have been involved, in the form of an ideology of hate. But that ideology is shared by many who don't pull the trigger, and not only in the former lave states. The interesting thing is the ideology of hate.
There is always a "lone gunman" around to pull the trigger. The right response is to ask, where does he get the idea it's okay to do so?
