Serial Killers

What happened to them? There's an active interest in them, but people are still gawking over killers that haven't been active since the 80s and not paying any attention to the newer ones. Is keeping up with crime in the internet age harder than in the hard press and ink era?

The new antihero is the school cafeteria or place of worship shooter. Mutant psychos no longer have the attention span to methodically plan out elaborate labyrinths of clues for the police and FBI to follow, and having a catchy nickname is worthless now in an age of online avatars. The only thing left is to stockpile guns and just out in a ballistic, blaze of glory type thing. Get with the times.

>>57109 >ballistic, blaze of glory type thing Serial killers don't suicide by cop though. What you're describing is completely different from serial killing. And they still do exist by the way, you just rarely hear about them outside of some local tabloids.

the deadly puzzle master type is the anti-thesis to the adhd meta. Gone are the days where smart killers can get attention. Too long didnt read. Low effort school shooters get all the hype at no work. Its a though world out there for people with professional standards.

>>57112 I know it's completely different, I even described it that way. The serial killers you describe are like great films or music; there is never much of either at any given time, it just seems that way when you look down the historical record from here. I saw a study a couple of years ago that said economically and socially, all the ingredients were present to incubate a new golden age of serial killers when the appropriate demographic reaches the right age, in about 10-15 years from now. This was before covid and lockdowns happened too, which can only thicken the mix. If I can remember the link I'll post it but don't get your hopes up.

Crime rates in general have been declining worldwide since the 90s. Why? Basically unleaded fuel, video games and economic growth. As to what happened to serial killers in particular? Technology happened. It's extremely difficult to murder a single person and get way with it much less murder people serially. Cameras are everywhere, DNA testing is a solved problem, forensic genealogy is a thing and also, there is nowhere to run, a killer cannot just disappear.

>>57142 >extremely difficult to murder a single person and get way with it I think you mean murder someone intentionally ;)

>>57099 Took tetraethyl lead out of the air, did a bunch of psychopharmaceutical and other social engineering campaigns to deaden people's affect so that they could more comfortably live in massive concentrations, and a lot of MKULTRA-type programs graduated to other stages so they stopped manipulating people to do stuff like this It still happens, but we won't know about the ones who are active now for a good while. A lot always slipped through cracks/cases never got connected. If you go and take out somebody at random with no rational motive or connection to you, you have a very high percentage chance of nothing ever coming of it

>>57199 A murder implies the intention to kill. If it's not intentional it's not a murder, it's a manslaughter.

>>57201 I think he means without a conventional motive but yea

ehh, if you look there are still certainly a lot of reports of 'active serial killers' around. I think part of the enjoyment people get about reading about this sort of thing comes from being able to see what feels like a whole story. For that you kinda need a lot of information that an effective serial killer doesn't neccisarily leave around. If you just kill prostitutes and hide the bodies it might not be immediately obvious there's been a murder till someone stumbles upon the skeletons years later. Or even if the murders are discovered and draw some attention, a slow or careful serial killer might work well enough that they're not immediately and confidently linked. maybe its harder today than it was in the 70s. Maybe it just forces them to be more careful. Some quick websearching turns up a fair number of 'current' and 'recent' serial killers to me. I think OP is probably just hallucinating. And re: total crime rates going down, serial killers have always been a dust on the cake of total murders. You could imagine total murders going to 50%, and serial killings more than tripling, yet still being a small fraction of total. These are irrelevant and generally unrelated rates.

>>57207 realize I didn't quite make clear my point. Wait 10 or fifteen years and we might hear more cool complete stories of the most exciting serial killers of the 2010's. Right now we're too close to that action to see it properly, and apprehensions for this sort of thing sometimes take a long while.

>>57208 Exactly. Except a few very bombastic killers, most of these patterns don't become obvious until some time has passed. Then people start connecting cold cases together. It helps that preventing your death is like the last priority in the world for police, they dgaf

>>57208 I think there is a big difference now. A lot of Dark triad psychopaths crave thrills. Like other lains said, living fast is the new thing. Humans crave novelty, and there is plenty of novel violence to be had. Serial killers either wanted the novelty or risk of getting caught (because psychopaths). But the notoriety of being a mass shooter may be more appealing. I worked with a serial killer years ago. He got caught because of something trivial where someone saw him with the victim shortly before her disappearance and asked him about it at work, but he denied knowing who she was and got extremely suspicious about it. He stopped showing up at work after that and ended up anheroing alone, but he left a suicide note where he confessed to a lot of other unsolved murders with details of where he hid the bodies and how he killed them etc. In the end he was too afraid of what people would do to him once he got caught IIRC, but his murders spanned several decades so nobody ever connected the dots. Not posting details. People who want the thrill of killing can go join ISIS or whatever now, or for those who just want power, they can get addicted to the risk and pleasure of hookup culture (and raping/threatening people- see all the stories about women who go on a date and were forced to perform acts under duress), prevalence of drugs which feeds addictive and impulsive personalities keeps people from accomplishing much, and a lot of people who have psychopathic tendencies can just exploit the system to become rich and powerful and people treat them as being "motivated go-getters." which is why many politicians, CEOs and celebrities have very similar traits to serial killers. In the past, a lot of high profile serial killers were also either very intelligent and/or charismatic. Because of internet culture, those people either become influences or internet autists who fall into self defeating loops on re*dit. >The first step that the potential killer takes occurs when he begins to withdrawal from reality and enter into his own private world of perverted fantasy. >The killer next begins to seek out his victim, focusing on those venues he is most likely to find the type of person he has chosen to prey on >Most serial killers once they have identified their victim-to-be, then try to win his/her confidence and like a fisherman, lure their ‘catch’ into a trap. >Next is the phase or step in which the killer springs the trap he has set for his victims. >The moment of actually causing the victims death, is normally the emotional high for most confessed serial killers. In these seconds, some killers have reported spontaneous orgasms to signify their moment of triumph. >The serial killer’s feeling of triumph normally fades rapidly once the victim is dead, so to prolong his/her pleasure, he/she will often remove and take a souvenir or totem associated with the victim. >Dr. Joel Norris writes that after a killer causes a death, ‘post-homicidal depression’ sets in and triggers the cycle of steps to beginning all over again. This is why a serial killer kills more than once and isn’t known to stop killing until he/she is caught or dies. These highs and lows can be just as influenced by online media. A lot of simps could probably be latent serial killers with their fixation, just because of their physical distance or technical capability they cant actually access their victims and just resort to creepy messages on twitter until they get blocked. I think the last notable "serial" killer turned mass shooter was the las vegas shooter. He had a lot of emotional problems, loved thrill seeking and impulsive activities, and may have found the thrill of one big act to be extremely stimulating.

I think this whole serial killer phenomenon was just a cultural fascination of middle class in one period of time and went just out of fashion. Notice that very concept of serial killer makes no sense in most of human history, where most of ruling class (knights and princes) were serial killers. Killing others were not perceived as deviance, but sad necessity to be avoided. When they achieved it, especially in Victorian era, it became sexual fetish, like everything tabooized. Some of people, usually from most oppressed social strata, with mental problems, possessed by their own shadows, decided to wilfully play role of scapegoat-villain which was enforced on them by the society. They just believed they're truly how others see them and conformed to this role, as we all do, which is called social functioning. In meantime, topic just stopped to be fashionable and serial killings stopped to give people attention and social acceptance they deeply desired (ersatz of parental love).

>>57099 DNA testing was invented and it's easier to gather intelligence with modern technology. It has nothing to do with "short attentionspans", that's ridiculous. Being Ted Bundy is practically impossible in the modern age.

>>57980 how is it, when I already know at least two people for whom murder is just a job? both come from highly criminal areas, one in Latin America, second in Eastern Europe. they killed a lot of people not because it thrills them but because it's the only thing they learned to earn a living. yet none of them was in prison. an yes, they work in US too.

>>57981 >>57980 There is a phenomenon in some killers or soldiers that you can be trained to turn off your empathy, and approach the kill with the same technical skill as a mechanic repairs a car, or a chef bakes a cake. The advent of modern technology makes it easier to find killers by tracking their whereabouts constantly on cell phones and through communications, but there are still plenty of murder cases that are unsolved. I think there is a differentiation between hit-men and mercenaries who kill for money, and serial killers who kill for fun. There is even a difference between people who kill in the heat of the moment with anger or gang affiliations, and those who meticulously plan, prepare, seduce, and kill others for personal reasons with no objective gain. >>57979 >I think this whole serial killer phenomenon was just a cultural fascination of middle class in one period of time and went just out of fashion. There are always those who want to be popular or known, and being notorious is one way of being known. Killing people has been part of human history, and there were those who tortured and slaughtered others since at least the dawn of agriculture. Some murderers had mental problems and hallucinated that god was telling them to kill and they believed the fantasy that if they killed enough, maybe the voices would disappear. With modern medicine, the prevalence of mental defects that would have been life ending has also increased. People who historically would have been killed, abandoned, or parents who had children at an older age have all contributed to a worsening gene pool both mentally and physically, and that doesn't even brush the surface of social impact.

>>57982 It doesn't need to be trained and it's not about empathy. First of all, primary psychopathy is, just like autism, a spectrum. People now treat this condition sensationally just like autist savants until recently. Yes, it's much different neurotype but some mechanism are analogous. My acquaintances learned their job for the very the same reasons people from other places in the world would learn to program computers. Their neurotype gives them an advantage and this occupation is simply well paid, especially if you were raised in soykafholes where nobody gives a fuarrrk you are a gang member if you give your kids healthy and relatively safe life. By the way, psychopathy gives greater resistance to remorse, but still not total. It's always a calculation, you lose something, you gain something, like in any other job. On the other side people who simply want to rebel for not getting something as a child will have just as much trouble becoming a professional in this job as in any other profession, maybe even more trouble. Gangs can be no less hierarchical organisations and maybe even more ruthless than corporations, and sometimes they doesn't differ too much from corporations. For fun you can always kill a deer in forest if you want, it's safer and you can do it legally. You also can join any of mercenary armies for adventure. Maybe there's any reason person could want to perform social role of serial killer but I don't see it for myself, to be honest, but I'm not a criminologist of course.

>>57982 Also, by the way, I can imagine killing in the heat of the moment, a little bit, but isn't this more an accident then, than a murder, if you didn't really want to kill a person or didn't think about it? To perform any complex task like this successfully, especially in modern high security society, you always need a reconnaissance, theoretical foundation and practice. When it goes to performing actual task, you don't feel emotions and prefer to not act emotionally. Also I don't understand why you distinguish between 'personal reasons' and 'objective gain' - isn't personal gain objective?

>>57985 >Also I don't understand why you distinguish between 'personal reasons' and 'objective gain' - isn't personal gain objective? Personal reasons by definition would be subjective. If there were an objective gain (money, food, security, shelter) then the act of killing could be justified as a necessary action and the person can rationalize the action. This is why many soldiers and hitmen who do kill can articulate their actions "I don't like killing, but I like being good at my job, and my job involves killing, so I am good at it". The subjective personal reason would be more like "I like hearing the screams as I stab children and cut their hearts out." There was a webm posted in another thread where someone shoots a person breaking down his door. You can hear the shooter being extremely distraught with having shot a man. A psychopath would find joy in this action. Perhaps he would even revel in the mans dying breaths and pleading for help. This may be for a number of reasons including that he now holds the power over this mans life or death. A Sociopath May take pride in "doing the right thing/protecting the other residents" but would probably would not have second thoughts about it. A well trained professional would shoot the man, then go about his day without having second thoughts, he had to protect himself and the other residents like he was paid or trained to do. >It doesn't need to be trained and it's not about empathy. First of all, primary psychopathy is, just like autism, a spectrum. Training people to look at killing as a skill and action is the whole point of military or gang indoctrination. Of course certain traits make it easier to learn this. Overall though, a "normal" mindset nowadays is that killing is bad, and thus people who kill are bad. This is not the case. Serial killing is not a "spectrum," it is a behavior. >To perform any complex task like this successfully, especially in modern high security society, you always need a reconnaissance, theoretical foundation and practice. This is generally the case in any premeditated murder, or hit, though most people get caught because their planning is poor and background is not in killing. >When it goes to performing actual task, you don't feel emotions and prefer to not act emotionally. Unlike a normal person who feels anger, fear, sadness, or is hysterical while killing (your "accidental kill"), or a hitman who approaches it as a job in a neutral emotional manner, a serial killer actually feels pleasure or happiness while killing. Some serial killers feel sexual release or arousal in killing or the thrill of their acts. Killing a deer is one thing and has practical application for food, but some people are captivated by killing increasingly more vicious or complex prey. Killing a person is not the same. Most hunters kill with the death of the animal in mind. While this takes skill, it is very similar to a hitman or soldier. killing Larger animals are seen as a way to demonstrate exceptional skill as a hunter. Psychopaths are narcissistic and will kill with their own feelings in mind, the victim is just an object for their amusement. As their amusement fades, they find new ways of entertaining themselves (torture, or finding more complex prey, at some point humans).

>>57986 >If there were an objective gain (money, food, security, shelter) then the act of killing could be justified as a necessary action and the person can rationalize the action. This is why many soldiers and hitmen who do kill can articulate their actions "I don't like killing, but I like being good at my job, and my job involves killing, so I am good at it". >The subjective personal reason would be more like "I like hearing the screams as I stab children and cut their hearts out." I agree, but aren't the two actually two sides of the same coin? Some people become soldiers because they're forced to, others because it's well paid, but apparently in both group there's sometimes something that make people really enjoy suffering of their victims, and they don't even hide it. I think sexual fetishism of weapons and killing is visible even in myself, while I'm clearly not a psycho individual, both primary or secondary, because I don't follow such motivations. For example- few days ago one guy, Russian solider, just posted in social media proof of his crimes (torture, rape and murder of several children and their mothers) and selfie with their bodies, is he psychopathic individual? Did he think about his parents seeing this and just ignored it, ot how he will explain other people what motivated him to his actions? If he's psychopath, he shouldn't care for patriotism but only use this as a cynical rationalisation, like it was in fact moral behaviour; but then, why he posted evidence for this crime in social media, rather than rationally maintain a self-image as a warm and empathetic person? I think I get this: he was under severe stress so his natural moral reflexes weren't working, and that's why he acted like a psychopath, getting sexually excited about rape and murder, and then remorse will ultimately destroy him after time. But he also can, like other war criminal whose story I listened to, find a person who is sane and, even though she will have evidence and awareness of series of homicidal rape and tortures her boyfriend/husband has committed, will easily absolve him and try to convince him that he shouldn't worry about it, because literally anyone would do as he did, even under her own name and before the cameras of the whole world. Which I think that's a denial, after a while. >Serial killing is not a "spectrum," it is a behavior. Ok, I think i understand now. I think I misunderstood impaired empathy and antisocial behaviour with serial killer type of mind. >Killing a deer is one thing and has practical application for food But no one hunts for food? I know people use several dissociation methods to deny that they actually enjoy killing animals for pure pleasure of killing, but aren't they killing just for joy? >Psychopaths are narcissistic and will kill with their own feelings in mind, the victim is just an object for their amusement. As their amusement fades, they find new ways of entertaining themselves (torture, or finding more complex prey, at some point humans). So they're sexually sadistic, amoral and not empathetic (because of psychopathy). While every of this trait can occur in normal person, only when they all happen at once, we have a serial killer, do I get it?

>>57988 >I agree, but aren't the two actually two sides of the same coin? Some people become soldiers because they're forced to, others because it's well paid, but apparently in both group there's sometimes something that make people really enjoy suffering of their victims, and they don't even hide it. They are not dissimilar, on the surface, they may even look almost the same. Many soldiers who choose to serve may be sociopaths, emphasis being on their desire to Psychopaths are generally not phased by the consequences of their actions, or the consequences excite them. In the case of the rape soldier, he was was probably doing it for notoriety. While he may be shunned by society, he may feel empowered by the results of his actions. I would say he is a psychopath. There are many soldiers who are psychopaths who join to kill by legal means (having the government pay them to). There is congitive dissonance, especially with people close to psychopaths. The charisma that they have will make people around them feel their actions were justified or they will convince people (especially women) to brush off the consequences. Research shows how "sexy" psychopaths are, and people while admitting that they committed crimes are okay. If he tells woman "it was war and this is normal" she may think that it would ONLY happen in war and never happen outside. He may think he can get away with his crimes because he is in war. Naturally, posting evidence was not good planning unless he will say he is a victim of propaganda and it never happened when people ask him about it (this gives him even more attention from sympathy of others). >why he posted evidence for this crime in social media, rather than rationally maintain a self-image as a warm and empathetic person? What can be more thrilling than posting about what you are doing, especially if it is something you KNOW will be viral? He does not care what people think, it will make him popular (even if in a bad way). >and then remorse will ultimately destroy him after time. If he is a sociopath, perhaps. Sociopaths are created by their environment. Because of his other behaviors, it is more likely he cannot feel remorse, and the thrill of raping, killing, and posting about it gives him immense positive satisfaction. Remember that a serial killer posted pictures of his victims on 4chan and bragged about it once. Rape, especially in war is a power move to show someone you are in control of their life. >Ok, I think i understand now. I think I misunderstood impaired empathy and antisocial behaviour with serial killer type of mind. Both psychopaths and sociopaths can have impaired empathy and antisocial behavior. The psychopath does it for personal reasons because he is selfish. The sociopath usually does it because he thinks what he is doing is right and he is morally better than others. The difference being psycho = mind and socio =society/companion. Psychopaths do it for themselves, sociopaths do it for others (or they think that they are). >But no one hunts for food? I know people use several dissociation methods to deny that they actually enjoy killing animals for pure pleasure of killing, but aren't they killing just for joy? Many people feel rewarded by providing for themselves. The same way you feel rewarded by fixing your own car instead of taking it to the mechanic. In some cases, like safaris, there is a deep connection between the hunter and his prey, to show that one is the strongest predator and one feels like an alpha. This would be similar to how winning a fight makes you feel powerful. A psychopath would fight to dominate his opponent and inflict suffering for his own amusement. A normal person would fight to win and show he is the strongest to get social recognition through a show of agression. A sociopath would fight for justice or what he thinks is right (this really depends on the situation) >So they're sexually sadistic, amoral and not empathetic (because of psychopathy). While every of this trait can occur in normal person, only when they all happen at once, we have a serial killer, do I get it? Yes, this idea is called the "Dark Triad," most people have some of these traits, but when someone has all 3 do they generally become serial killers >Narcissism - selfshness/confidence/dominance >Machiavellianism - cold, amoral, manipulative >Psychopathy - low empathy & high impulsiveness Some people think they should have a 4th category of >sadism - enjoyment of cruelty and suffering (different than psychopathy)

>>57990 Accidentally deleted part of the post >serve may be sociopaths, emphasis being on their desire to be respected for doing "the right thing" which happens to be whatever THEY think is right (killing ukranians because their commander told them they were nazis, and nazis are bad people, etc.)

>>57990 >>57991 Thank you very much for your text. It's very claryfying. Also I think: >sociopaths, emphasis being on their desire to be respected for doing "the right thing" which happens to be whatever THEY think is right (killing ukranians because their commander told them they were nazis, and nazis are bad people, etc.) Is the reason of my original misinterpretation of very concept and social group, because it hit too close to home. The people you write are sociopaths I see through the lens of myself, i.e., a person raised without an internal moral compass. Because of the negative attitude generally towards the law in a given territory and the prevailing social order, a person may become consumed with, for example, a desire for revenge, a deep inner hatred and rage at the world, that can be moved through some individual or a group that can be predictable and thus provide some limited security, to accept their view of the world or their morals. When you wrote >which happens to be whatever THEY think is right of course I thought >so they don't differ nothing from ordinary people, as it's obvious for a person to put own sense of rightness places above the socially acceptable Frankly, I can't think otherwise because the strongest and wealthiest group in the town isn't an foundation of morality for me and I've never had any reason to believe that their legitimacy is any different. I think it's obvious thing that's criminal act for the court and the police and even if it's amoral for most people, if it's not a crime for me I'll have nothing against doing it. Fortunately, as I've gotten older/experienced, I've come to understand a little bit about my stupidity and what kind of soylatte I could get myself into (because I have a conscience and guilt), but basically it's not hard for me to imagine that I could easily become some gang member who enjoys murdering people without batting an eye, it would be enough if it was my group and they told me what to do; especially if I didn't have an education that allowed me to self-reflect. Hence the specific path half-orphaned children I observed in practice, who basically end as an adults who internalised role of social scapegoat, and then by their tragic actions after the fact rationalize the imprisioning. This Russian solider I described was a psychopath, I think you convinced me, but to be honest most of war criminals I listened to sounded more like adult version of unwanted kids I met who just took care of themselves and someone else, who knew how to use them, became their family.

>>57985 >I can imagine killing in the heat of the moment, a little bit, but isn't this more an accident then, than a murder, if you didn't really want to kill a person or didn't think about it? pretty sure this is where the 'degrees' of murder in some law systems come from. If I get drunk and angry and kill someone intentionally its still murder, its still intentional, but its somewhat different than plotting it out weeks before hand. Its also a lot different than a real complete accident though. >>57988 >But no one hunts for food? where else can you get good fresh wild meat that cheap ehh ? Also some places in the midwest I've met subsistence fishermen. And besides, is there much difference between killing something and hiring another guy to kill it for you, or are you a vegetarian (f@gg0t)? At least when I hunt myself I know someones getting joy out of it, not just some sad guy working the slaughterhouse wishing he could get back home or whatever. Also man hate to derail the thread but slaughterhouse laws are ridiculous.

>>57993 I'm not vegetarian, I eat fish, and I indeed feel horribly sorry for slaughterhouse workers, I know they have PTSD and it destroys them mentally, even though it doesn't pay much. Maybe it would be better to be a hitman or a solider, at least you would kill people, or a guard in a concentration camp, because then killing would happen without looking too long. Literally any profession after which you end up with such PTSD is better paid, but the working class as we know always is forced to do the worst thing. I don't mind you killing animals, others kill people and I don't judge them either, I just don't want to be their victim.

>>57990 Serial killers are very likely not dark triads. Rpimary and secondary psychopathy + narcissism sure, but when you combine primary psychopathy and the Machiavellianism components, the entire manifestation changes. These are the people who architect and maintain the world's biggest scams, such as the medical-industrial complex. They built the world and dominate it completely. They see all of us as part of their own mind at best (narcissism dominant_, cattle and playthings on average (psychopathy dominant).

Because mass shootings are far more common and can happen in broad daylight. This is so scary to many people because it completely shakes their notion of killers being cowards rather than unfeeling, uncaring people who are not afraid to do evil things.

>>57992 I am glad you got clarified. Creating sociopaths on a large scale is a skill that some people take to the extreme. It is very simple to twist the mind of someone who really has nothing in life. This is actually how many gangs, military and terrorist recruiting happens. Gangs will give people shelter/protection/food/drugs/women for sex/etc. and all someone has to do is be unquestionably loyal to the group: Sure there are people who want to kill. But normal people want social recognition. Giving someone a false sense of social achievement (being respected and loved for who you are) by giving someone a wrong sense of purpose and self actualization allows you to lead someone to be your pawn. Anti-extremmism therapy addresses that by trying to get people to find fulfilling social roles that don't involve murdering others. Pic related shows a low profile use of this as being "great" by joining the American military with the classic tactic of making someone be "special and better than everyone else". For more blatant example, ISIS recruiting videos on social media were extremely useful for getting foreign volunteers. So much so that ISIS got thousands more volunteers than Al-Qaeda. Be cautious of what you read on social media, because indoctrinating people to extremism is a skill that social media groups have had years to make better. Even before social media, terror groups used to give out misprinted religious books that replaced "The devil" with "America" so people with no access to any kind of literacy learned that America was the evil that every good citizen needed to fight. Chinese and Russian state propaganda is no different right now. When it is the only "truth" people know, it becomes difficult for people to distrust the narrative. >>57997 In the un-indoctrinated, part of killing in war and accepting it is the idea that what you did was necessary and there was no alternative. Conscripts will often try to avoid killing when possible. Data from WW1 and WW2 and prior shows that most troops will actually only pretend to shoot at their enemies and find excuses to miss when they can. Most casualties of war actually now happen from rockets, bombs, and artillery where the shooter does not directly look at the person he is killing and indiscriminately kill. When you cannot justify it, then it becomes difficult to cope. Drone pilots have a high burn out rate and severe PTSD and Depression, because "Just another day at the office" consists of going into work after breakfast, watching a group of people on a screen for 10 hours, killing a family of 30, then going back home for dinner with your wife who asks you how your day was. >>58010 I'm interested why you think they aren't dark triads? If they often seduce or kidnap/exploit their victims, how much different is that from trying to manipulate the world to doing what you want? Treating people like cattle for your products to wageslave for your is just a socially acceptable way of using people as pawns imo. >>58011 There used to be a perception that serial killer = coward in the shadows. But mass shooters show just as much planning, but execution usually goes wrong from uncontrollable variables (not knowing how to use guns when they jam, getting caught by police or someone who fights back, doors being locked) When you kill someone one-on-one, you can usually control most of the variables: >watching your victim leave work >making sure they are vulnerable >following your victim to their car >incapacitating your victim for transporting them >being in control while your victim is being used/killed by you On the other hand mass shooters usually just find a group of people they don't like and decide that they are going to kill them all. The more people who are present, the more variables get introduced, like what if an off duty police officer with a gun happens to be at the target. And more recently, mass shooters want notoriety, so they livestream, which means the chances of being reported/spotted before hand means that police are on scene faster, and a lot of police, especially in the USA are trigger happy.

>>58015 >Data fr0m WW1 and WW2 and prior shows that most troopers will actually only pretend to shoot at their enemies and f1nd excuses to m1ss when they can. SLA Marshall was chock fu// of sh*t and yet you people keep repeating his dumb memes decades later. When will it stahp. >other hand ma55 shooters usually just find a group of people they don't like and decide that they are going to kill them all. this might be tru for the pop. mass shooters, but wen people define mass shooting and generate statistics on them, the reality seems to be that the average mass shooting is just a crazy n*gger with a gun, or some gang interaction. Columbine, Paris 2015, Tarrant, these are exceptional incidents in the ranks of mass shootings. If you're worried about getting caught up in one, best advice is going to be to not stick around in bad neighborhoods, and don't go to parties full of n1gg*rs. Likewise the best advice to avoid being killed by a serial killer is not to be a litteral prostitute. Sometimes it doesnt work, but that's a rarity within a rarity. For whatever reason its that most rare of species that gets the greatest interest. Can we get you to elaborate your experiences with such messed up soldiers as you talk about? Ideally u know, the ones that actually soldier as opposed to just doing logistics/intelligence/soykaf. Maybe its that the really messed up ones all off themselves or arent as social but basically all the ones I've met who've actually killed people seem A-OK. Don't know any dronebros meself tho.

>>58015 No soykaf man, this really makes sense. >>58017 >crazy n*gger with a gun So a sociopath indoctrinated to believe whites, rather than system of social conditioning, are responsible for all his trauma. As I outed myself already (I don't know if you people distinguish anons by style) I'm a European Jew, before I met one US Army veteran who in some degree cured my mind from this soykaf (the rest was completed by our local anti-Semite, as in the proverb which says "if you forget that you are a Jew, anti-Semites will remind you of it") I was basically going to be terrorist in killing spree, a.k.a. crazy nga with a gun like you called such people. I was actually in my road to Syria, to kill guys who were descendants from other European genocide (Bosniaks, many of whom were ISIS fighters). It's all because instead of becoming individually responsible for yourself and curing your head in therapy, in such state you endlessly seek the person who is responsible for why you're so fuarrrked up since birth and why you suffer, and of course actually murdering people makes you more traumatised and you usually end dead as someones else agenda free whore.

BTW I remember one of gang guys I talked with suggested me that you often instead of directly kill a person (because your natural moral reflexes try to stop you from this) you can intimidate and convince the victim that suicide will be better, controllable option than torture they will perform on them. It makes then your job then just easier, and when people read a lot about psychopaths and are constantly terrified about their own violent projections, they do not fight.

>>58030 Which is totally convincing to me, by the way, because, especially in mass murder situation, normal person with high level of empathy, can have deluded feeling that fighting and actually allowing to kill themselves is morally better option than killing or harming an agresor. That's why so many of victims of genocide didn't believe fight made any sense which made crime only easier. BTW As I observed in myself, person who has experience of inheriting collective PTSD can seek protection in people who have attributes of military strength but are not German - like Russia, hence I for example dream about being ally of Russia because I subconsciously feel loyalty to ant-fascism; I have crazy theory that they did it intentionally with intention break Zelensky's mind and will to fight.

>>58015 >I'm interested why you think they aren't dark triads? It's the machiavellianism component. It indicates broad and long term planning, as well as a fixation on a different type of goal. I won't say it's outright inversely correlated, but I think it would greatly alter the way dominance is exercised, and torment is done unto others. It would favor indirect means.

>>58027 >So a sociopath indoctrinated to believe whites, rather than system of social conditioning, are responsible for all his trauma. Oh, sorry, I assumed you would understand. No, not trying to kill whites, trying to kill other niggers. Or maybe just one or a couple specific ones, but with terrible aim and worse discretion. And if there happens to be a white in the area, or a jew like yourself, there's a chance you get hit too. Usually not fatally but still.

>>58015 >Data from WW1 and WW2 and prior shows that most troops will actually only pretend to shoot at their enemies and find excuses to miss when they can. SLA Marshall was full of sh*t and yet you people keep repeating his dumb memes decades later. When will it stop. >other hand mass shooters usually just find a group of people they don't like and decide that they are going to kill them all. while this might be true for the popular mass shooters, when people define mass shooting and generate statistics on them, the reality seems to be that the average mass shooting is just a crazy n*gger with a gun, or some gang interaction. Columbine, Paris 2015, Tarrant, these are highly exceptional incidents in the ranks of so called mass shootings. If you're worried about getting caught up in one, the best advice is going to be to not stick around in bad neighborhoods, and don't go to parties full of nigg*rs. Likewise the best advice to avoid being killed by a serial killer is not to be a litteral prostitute. Sometimes it doesnt work, but that's a rarity within a rarity. For whatever reason its that most rare of species that gets the greatest scruitiny. Can I ask about your experiences with soldiers ? Ideally you know, the ones that actually soldier as opposed to just doing logistics/intelligence/soykaf. Maybe its that the really messed up ones off themselves or arent as social but basically all the ones I've met who've actually killed people seem A-OK. Don't know any dronebros though.

>>58047 >SLA Marshall was full of sh*t and yet you people keep repeating his dumb memes decades later. When will it stop. source? >the reality seems to be that the average mass shooting is just a crazy n*gger with a gun, or some gang interaction. Depends on what you mean by a "mass shooting". Some sources define it explicitly as being devoid of motivation, which discounts gang violence. Gang members are overwhelmingly most likely to be victims of gang violence so unless you're in a gang you're probably not going to be a target. If you look at the actual data, most of the fatalities in mass shooting incidents (by any definition) occur in cases where dudes just fire a machine gun into a crowd. They are rare but mass shootings in general are rare enough that an extra 50 fatalities skews the numbers quite a bit. very helpful source on the topic: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html >Maybe its that the really messed up ones off themselves or arent as social but basically all the ones I've met who've actually killed people seem A-OK. Don't know any dronebros though. People can be pretty good at hiding mental illness, and as you pointed out you're more likely to meet someone who is more social.

>>58055 >sla marshall sauce https://www.americanheritage.com/secret-soldiers-who-didnt-shoot this is a good article trying to discuss problems with his claims and his methods, or lack of, to arrive at them. TLDR: good reason to suspect he made it up or derived it from limited/misinterpreted data and didn't do proper investigation later.

>>58040 it's just us version of amok to be honest if i could talk with them I would argument for being crazy in right way and organised

>>58032 Don't most mass shooters have some kind of long term/larger goal tho? Usually they post manifestos (tarrant et. al) and often times their actions demonstrate their desire for dominance in their lives and the lives of others. Even in court, many psychopathic mass shooters take pride in their actions. Some of them show a lot of remorse, especially the ones who were bullied and behave more sociopathically. >>58047 > Can I ask about your experiences with soldiers ? Ideally you know, the ones that actually soldier as opposed to just doing logistics/intelligence/soykaf. Maybe its that the really messed up ones off themselves or arent as social but basically all the ones I've met who've actually killed people seem A-OK. Don't know any dronebros though. Most soldiers with PTSD suffered because they were unable to rationalize what they did. Belief in a cause and faith in ones own life and capabilities are really important psychologically for being healthy. The ones who said "it was a firefight and we were under attack" seem to have lower prevalence of mental disturbance. Usually the non-frontline troops have higher rates of PTSD, specifically because their trauma is irrational. Combat is combat, and you can make sense of a lot of things by keeping combat and non-combat separate. On the other hand, support troops tend to have less comradery, important for shared social experience, which reduces risk of PTSD - and also support troops tend to not have a discernible line between normal and military life which primes them for stress and anxiety. Combat troops also directly see "the enemy" so they can feel that their jobs actually make a difference. This is double edged, as combat troops who kill children, even if by accident face extreme guilt. Even more trivially, some people face trauma of having not killed, like if they hesitated to take a shot and their peers were killed. Being in the right mindset when fighting eliminates these feelings of doubt, but getting there takes a lot of effort. Most combat troops either feel comfortable about what they did as necessary, or they are like the other lains said good at hiding their trauma because there is still a stigma that showing emotions is not manly. The SLA marshall thing was not the example I was disusing. There are other studies where the killing capacity exceeds the actual observed numbers. While the actual accurate fire of troops en masse demonstrates incredible killing capacity, the actual deaths per hour especially in large groups is much lower. This was done by testing a group of troops firing on a group sized target to record the number of confirmed hits with musket, but when troops were lined up in the same fashion, the actual casualties were much lower than what the calculated hit ratio was. Basically predicted K/D ratio =/= Actual K/D ratio by a vast over assessment. American police are a great example of how training can have the opposite effect. Many police are trained to what I would call "shoot on sight" While military are trained to make tactical decisions - sometimes to kill, other times not to kill. Many cops kill in cold blood and say the classic "I felt my life was in danger and he had a gun"

>>58062 >This was done by testing a group of troops firing on a group sized target to record the number of confirmed hits with musket, but when troops were lined up in the same fashion, the actual casualties were much lower than what the calculated hit ratio was. Basically predicted K/D ratio =/= Actual K/D ratio by a vast over assessment. OK this sounds like a bit from On Killing by Dave Grossman about a couple 19th century Battles in the US and Europe. Big old battle line style things shooting rifles vaugely in the right direction. Is that what you're talking about ? I've read a couple peices trying to suggest that he cherry picked a few battles to make his point well, might try and look into specifics if this is actually what you're talking about. >Can I ask about your experiences with soldiers you quote this but you don't actually answer the question. Am I to take it you know a soldier who has killed a guy and now has PTSD?? Can you talk about his experience ? No dox but I'm curious. >showing emotions is not manly Not a super scientific source but this reminds me of the Chanson de Roland. TLDR big battle, lots of people killed, semi mythic source, lots of manly tears. But the tears are all over fallen comrades, not over fallen foes, and in the end its off to fight another one of God's Toughest Battles. Reading people like Junger there's a certain amount of sympathy for the enemy, i.e. when he kills a child soldier, but stronger emotions seem to be for fallen comrades. Over all I feel like we're getting out of the skope of serial killers vs mass shooter analysis, and risking retreading ground like this thread https://lainchan.org/hum/res/52801.html#q55261. Should probably recenter or carry on over there. >>58055 >Some sources define it explicitly as being devoid of motivation if thats so then that's mighty sketchy if you ask me. Columbine was motivated, the Florida Highschool Shooting was motivated, Paris 2015, Tarrant, Brevik, all motivated. What the hell is left if you cut out motivated shootings? >If you look at the actual data, most of the fatalities in mass shooting incidents (by any definition) occur in cases where dudes just fire a machine gun into a crowd thanks for the rand link, I'll have time to comb through it more carefully later. If you look early in that page at table 1 you can find the following statistic from the mass shooting tracker. In its period you have 503 mass shootings (4+ injuries), and 628 fatalities, just under 1.25 fatalities per shooting. Meanwhile everytown in the same table has a definition of 4+ fatalities for (presumably ) the same period. In the 4+ fatality shootings you've only got 112 fatalities in 19 shootings, thats just 5.9 fatalities per shooting. Not exactly 'machine gun into crowd' if you ask me. Now I guess you'd want to point out the outliers like Las Vegas 2017 where the guy got a score of 60, more than half of the 2019 4+ fatality figures you've got there, and but less than 10% of the 4+ injuries. If a shooting like that only happens once every couple years, then the way I'm reading it, you're more likely to be killed in a small ish mass shooting that kills just over one person. Of course maybe the small ones are more targeted and are just like crazy nigger trying to kill one other nigger and on average killing about 1 and a quarter persons. Are they the actual targets ? Who knows I guess.

>>58040 >And if there happens to be a white in the area, or a jew like yourself, there's a chance you get hit too. Usually not fatally but still. btw for calling me not white you should be happy you're not dead or maimed right now, I would have no problem with rationalising this

>>57142 So how can we get away with murder, realistically? Must it be something Ted-style, like mailing happy materials to people? Assume it's someone you do not know- a total random. If you can see a person without a camera around, and can actually get to that position without being tracked too much by cameras, how do you even kill them without leaving your fuarrrking DNA on them?

>>57978 Aren't there ANY non-boring serial killers? That is, ones that just kill with no signature, leaving as little trace as possible.

>>58068 Yeah, this guy.

>>58069 Hahaha, is this AI-generated? fuarrrk, AI brewing soykaf is going to fuarrrk up the net soon.

>>58068 I personally like David Berkowitz, son of Samuel.

>>58065 >Am I to take it you know a soldier who has killed a guy and now has PTSD?? Can you talk about his experience? I know many people who have killed. Not really sure about what experiences you want to know. I'm sure the other thread is more appropriate, so please ask there. >Should probably recenter or carry on over there. Maybe I will >>58067 >So how can we get away with murder, realistically? Must it be something Ted-style, like mailing happy materials to people? Realistically? having a good lawyer. From a technical standpoint, forensics are notoriously bad. DNA and data analysis are decent when there is good data, but circumstantial evidence still plays a huge role. Firearms forensics, bite mark analysis, footprint and tire analysis are notoriously bad, lie detectors are even worse. >Assume it's someone you do not know- a total random. The "randomness" is a huge factor in finding the killer, patterns are everything. The ones who get away with it usually just have insufficient evidence to actually attribute someone. People are killed all the time for many reasons. Sometimes it is easier for the police to just call something a suicide or robbery depending on what other evidence they find. They have other cases to solve, that is why many murder victims families pay investigators to try to solve murders. >If you can see a person without a camera around, and can actually get to that position without being tracked too much by cameras, how do you even kill them without leaving your fuarrrking DNA on them? DNA is just a small part. DNA itself breaks down and finding DNA in the environment around a victim is not enough to actually call someone a suspect. Imagine if you bump into someone on a bus, and they end up dead a few hours later. Your DNA alone would not be enough to actually try to call you a primary suspect. Realistically speaking, a good covid protection would probably be enough to stop most DNA from spreading to the crime scene. Hair and skin samples left at the scene may be correlated to you if you are already in a system and are a suspect with no alibi, but a large part is how obvious the evidence is, like is it one hair that could have blown in the wind and ended up at the scene, or a clump of hair from a struggle? Blood samples and bodily fluid are large giveaways to who did it too. Most true serial killers get away with it simply because they kill in random places, so their movements can't be associated with where they live one killer admitted to 93 murders, but he was only charged with 3 that there was conclusive evidence he actually commited. Their unique "patterns" are often what gets them caught, if ever. Many also try to keep track of their pursuers too, so people obsessing over a case could be suspicious in itself. The same goes for robberies, and virtually any other crime. Witnesses or botched crimes are usually how people eventually get caught anyway. Pic related shows what one forensics expert says are the odds of a serial killer being caught.