I think it's a reasonable distinction--one basically can't be defended against, and the other can benefit from ubiquitous surveillance (theoretically) in advanc

I think it's a reasonable distinction--one basically can't be defended against, and the other can benefit from ubiquitous surveillance (theoretically) in advance. The problem is that if random acts of violence are conflated with systematic terrorism, we grossly inflate the numbers in such a way as to be constantly crying out for further surveillance and erosion of rights. And when the attacks keep happening, because they're spur-of-the-moment lunatics, we will proceed to clamp down harder. So, no, we have to draw the difference between the two.