As a result, terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder, determined as much by the attacker as by the community that is targeted, which must decide whether the attack represents a broader threat requiring a response.
Each attack, then, quickly sets off a zero-sum debate over the related issues of gun control, immigration or religious tolerance — some of the most divisive issues in the country — litigated in a moment of national duress.
The Las Vegas attack, for some Americans, typically those on the left, represented the terrorism of unchecked gun laws.
Classifying the Las Vegas attack as terrorism might mean classifying guns as national threats requiring a response. The right would see this as an attempt to tar all gun owners and conservatives.
Attacks like the one in New York, led by a man from Uzbekistan who shouted “Allahu akbar,” are seen by many on the right as stemming from the wider threat of uncontrolled Muslim immigration. If it is an act of terrorism, as Mayor Bill de Blasio and others have defined it, then the attacker cannot be dismissed as a disturbed loner.
