The shooting in a Louisville, Kentucky bank rattled the very pro-gun state.

It was justification for a lot of people to call for gun control almost immediately afterward, and the fact that the killer used an AR-15 just stirred the gun debate pot still further.

But what we normally don’t get is why mass shooters do what they do.

This time, though, we know. The killer left a manifesto outlining what he was trying to do, and guess what? This isn’t a garden-variety mass shooting.

It was an act of domestic terrorism.

Louisville bank shooter [name redacted] wrote a chilling manifesto before slaughtering five senior executives at the branch where he worked, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal.

The 13-page missive describes his goals before the horror at the downtown Old National Bank, where the 25-year-old livestreamed the massacre on Instagram as he gunned down co-workers at their morning conference.

[He] made three key points in the manifesto, which is in the hands of the police: he wanted to kill himself, he wanted to prove how easy it was to buy a gun in Kentucky and he wanted to highlight a mental health crisis in America.

The Daily Mail doesn’t seem inclined to detail the anti-gun agenda of the killer, though it was clearly prominent enough in the manifesto to warrant mention.

Because this was motivated by politics, a case can be made that this was domestic terrorism–something the pro-gun side keeps being accused of engaging in while hurting no one, I might add.

Now that we know the motivation we can also tell that there’s even less reason to capitulate with gun control demands.

How do I figure, you might ask?

Well, we know that giving into terrorism just begets more terrorism. There’s a reason we don’t pay terrorists ransoms. There’s a reason we don’t release the prisoners a hijacker or kidnapper demands released.

Once you prove terrorism works, you just encourage more terrorism. You simply feed into the beast you’re trying to make go away. Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

Passing gun control now would not only not accomplish the claimed goals of gun control but might also convince many other suicidal and politically-interested people that they can not only die but strike a blow for the cause they believe in by becoming a mass shooter.

In Louisville, I get people are distraught. When a mass shooting touches your life, it’s going to rattle you. Believe me, I get it.

But Louisville isn’t an example of why we need gun control. It wasn’t before and it’s even less so now.

Now it’s about not capitulating with mass murderers, even in death, out of some ridiculous hope you can prevent future atrocities while giving people ample reason to carry out future atrocities.

Had his motive excluded that aspect, gun control might be a topic worthy of debate. I wouldn’t support it, mind you, but my motivations for opposing it wouldn’t have included concerns that passing gun control might encourage more such attacks.

As it is, though, what happened in Louisville was, in fact, an act of domestic terrorism. We shouldn’t let a mass murderer win.