Why Were There So Many Serial Killers Between 1970 and 2000 – Where Did They Go? (opens in new tab)

(rollingstone.com)

2 pointstalhah5y ago3 comments

3 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

bluefirebrand5y ago· 2 in thread

I wonder how many of the mass shooters we've had since 2000 might have become serial killers if social standards around personal safety hadn't shifted so much.

You know, they did some risk assessment in their heads, figured they wouldn't be able to get away with killing a person once in a while over time, so they might as well kill as many as they can as fast as they can

There was also a brief serial killing spree / manhunt in Canada two years ago. That went on for a while and we're really lucky they didn't kill more than they did

smt885y ago

I think a major difference is that a lot of the mass shooters wanted to (or expected to) die during the crime.

The famous serial killers seem pretty different. They sometimes went to great lengths to prolong, conceal, and even justify their crimes.

I think we can only speculate, but it's very hard to imagine Gacy or Dahmer shooting up a country music concert. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that gave them gratification.

bluefirebrand5y ago

That's true.

I suppose I'm just curious because this decline of serial killers seems to have coincided with a rise in mass shootings and I have to wonder if that's correlated at all.

The article talks a bunch about how serial killers are likely a certain kind of person, shaped by their childhood environments

I'm just wondering if that certain kind of person exposed to a different environment is maybe the type that becomes a mass shooter.

Just speculation, though.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse