Serial killers or Spree Killers?

Which one of these type of murderers do you find more interesting in general? And why?

It depends on the situation. I would say I generally find serial killers more interesting. I honestly can see anyone going on a spree killing, it just takes someone that's had enough and plenty of people have had that with the failure of our mental health system (which is non-existant) and how society is in general.

A serial killer has a different mindset, they may have a vendetta or disdain for certain groups of people. But many serial killers do it for pleasure of some sort, thrill, sexual, ect.

I find the mind of a serial killer more interesting also their methods and means of killing victims. Unfortunately I pretty much understand the minds of spree killers/mass murderers. I was an angst filled teen, and I've been frustrated with society and how it oppresses people and stigmatizes mental health problems. I'm sure almost everyone now and again wants to pull a "Falling Down" lol, but gets over it.

I was watching a programme about serial killers on Netflix & it showed a fella who became a serial killer to try and get famous.

The same show also classed Anders Breivik a serial killer - I'm not sure I would myself.

Spree

Serial for me get repetitive, and unless they have an interesting manifesto or modus operandi that stands out, I would go with Spree because I'm morbidly fascinated by the daringness to execute their one time "claim to fame" or their kill which will only occur at that moment so it's either make it or break it and die there or be apprehended.

Spree killers. I find them more interesting.

Mass murderers, since there are various types of rampage killers with different motives. Serial killers are mainly sociopaths/psychopaths with a messed up amygdala and almost identical motives; To kill and inflict pain on others for their own amusement. The only serial killer that piqued my curiosity, was The Zodiac Killer. And that’s mainly because he was elusive and never got caught.

Draw_It_White wrote:

I was watching a programme about serial killers on Netflix & it showed a fella who became a serial killer to try and get famous.

The same show also classed Anders Breivik a serial killer - I'm not sure I would myself.

Whats it called?

Glamazon wrote:

Which one of these type of murderers do you find more interesting in general? And why?

Both are interesting, but spree killers. There's far more risk involved in killing multiple people in a short amount of time as opposed to a serial killer who waits for the right opportunity to kill his victims.

Also, there's something more foreboding about a spree killer opening fire. I liken it to that movie with Michael Douglas in it titled "Falling Down".

Glamazon wrote:

Mass murderers, since there are various types of rampage killers with different motives. Serial killers are mainly sociopaths/psychopaths with a messed up amygdala and almost identical motives; To kill and inflict pain on others for their own amusement. The only serial killer that piqued my curiosity, was The Zodiac Killer. And that’s mainly because he was elusive and never got caught.

Spree killers are psychopaths too.

Spree killing is a lot easier to do than serial killing. Most spree killings are just suicide missions anyways.

Anybody can kill a bunch of people in one or two places at any time but a serial killer has gaps/time between killings. The time between killings is when the serial killer CAN be caught. Technology is getting better but there are other things one has to consider: witnesses, evidence at the crime scene/dump site, and more.

Draw_It_White wrote:

The same show also classed Anders Breivik a serial killer - I'm not sure I would myself.

nope nope nope nope nope nope nope. Anyway, I'd say serial killers because of the (typically) cunning and relaxed personalities going on. Not so much manic, but they sometimes can be the opposite.

Draw_It_White wrote:

The same show also classed Anders Breivik a serial killer

How can someone be that stupid? Brevik is very clearly a mass murderer!

Serial killers for sure.
By that I mean police who routinely shoot criminals, sad that it has to happen but it does.

Most spree killers commit suicide or commit suicide by cop, cereal killers try to escape their crimes.

STK wrote:

Draw_It_White wrote:

I was watching a programme about serial killers on Netflix & it showed a fella who became a serial killer to try and get famous.

The same show also classed Anders Breivik a serial killer - I'm not sure I would myself.

Whats it called?

Apologies for the very, very long wait. I’ve only just got round to seeing this.

If you’re still interested - the show is called ‘Inside the Mind of a Serial Killer’. Anders features in Episode 3.

Serial because it's fascinating to see how they do their deeds and how long before they get caught. Now a days you only see spree killers because it's quite hard to be a serial killer with all the advancements in forensics.

Spree Killers without a doubt.

It irritates me when people say dumb shit like "oohhh aren't they like the same thing" like, no?

Serial killers(not all, but most) are interesting in that they live seemingly normal lives WHILE killing people in private; they DON'T want to get caught. Spree killers are almost the opposite, fast paced, no fucks given approach.

I'm all for researching *sick* crimes. I'll compare a spree killer and a serial killer for an example:

Adam Lanza shot and killed his Mother before going on a killing spree in an ELEMENTARY school. Killing kids, doesn't get much more sinful than that.

Ed Kemper also killed his mother :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I mean, killing your Mother is one thing.

Incest, another. But fucking her after killing her? AND decapitating her? Lol I dunno, but I just.. Urgh.

Whatever floats your boat I guess. Serial killers just don't cut it. (For me )

serial killers and their high level of ultraviolence. no borders, no remorse.

Always been massively obbsessed with serial killers almost like a aspie obbsession know alot about them.
But for the last year and a half ive been really obbsessed with mass murder.
I remember being interested with cho when it happened but went off the subject then We had aurora and sandy hook then isla vista all fairly close together and that got me back too the subject then i got really interested in columbine.
Now i dont really bother with serial killers.

Ivan wrote:

Glamazon wrote:

Which one of these type of murderers do you find more interesting in general? And why?

there's something more foreboding about a spree killer opening fire.

Thats one of my reasons it must be really intense.

There's something majestic about Sprees, that could include a rampage trolling Spree, so Spree killers it is.

Thread moved from Off Topic.

They're both interesting, but I'd say spree killers are more interesting because of differing motives. Serial killers usually aren't driven by any motive. They just kill lots of people for a long time and do it just for sadistic enjoyment.

Spree/Mass killers by fucking far... a lot of- if not all true crime cases that aren't that disturb me and ramp up my paranoia on every level. It does seem odd that in the 70s-90s we had serial killers as the glamorized murderer and now it's spree killers.

spree killers definitely.... there's something so interesting in finding out what drives people to commit mass murder, as at that point there's no going back. that's what they chose to do with their lives. after committing mass murder they are dead or in jail for life.

comparatively serial killers can often go ages before being caught, so it isn't as life changing or as dramatic as going on a killing spree is....

DF978 wrote:

Spree/Mass killers by fucking far... a lot of- if not all true crime cases that aren't that disturb me and ramp up my paranoia on every level. It does seem odd that in the 70s-90s we had serial killers as the glamorized murderer and now it's spree killers.

Well it's much harder to be a serial killer nowadays with CCTV, DNA testing, ballistics, forensics, phone logs, etc

Spree killers

Both. But if I had to choose one, Spree Killers.

9mmtomyhead wrote:

Both. But if I had to choose one, Spree Killers.

Same but serial killing is much harder to do because of all of the technological advancements in the past 20-40 years

Spree killers, for some reason the serial killers dont catch my attention

Koltin wrote:

9mmtomyhead wrote:

Both. But if I had to choose one, Spree Killers.

Same but serial killing is much harder to do because of all of the technological advancements in the past 20-40 years

You're right, but it's sometimes nice to research Serial Killers from the 60s decade like the Zodiac Killer.

At first I was interested in serial killers, then afterwards in mass murderers. And I find mass murderers much more interesting, I can have empathy for them, for serial killers it's more difficult.

Mass murderers. The only serial killer I've really researched is Jeffrey Dahmer but I find mass murderers to be a lot more interesting.

Serial Killer's - one thing that i find interesting about them is partially how they are able to hide in plain sight and could be someone you could pass on the street or sit on the bus next to or just strike up a conversation with in a queue.

Though i'll admit there are those that i find more interesting to study then others just like how it is with spree killers for me personally.

Serial killers never interested me. I'm not even that interested in Columbine either, I just find mass murder as a phenomenon fascinating.

There have been a few that fit the definition for both. Like Anatoly Onoprienko.

Im into both

Serial Killers are fucкing boring, at least in my eyes. Only ones that stand out to me are the Zodiac, Lázaro Barbosa de Sousa, and Todd Kohlhepp.

I don't get how stupid fuckin' bitches sit around and watch documentaries on them all day, and then there's the ones that wanna fucк them?????? Crazy. For example, some of these bitches are obsessed with killers such as Richard Ramirez, who raped and murdered a 9 year old girl, like yeah what a misunderstood upstanding citizen... fucк you.

How do people find John Wayne Gacy interesting??? He didn't even kill people with the clown costume on?? All he did was kill lil boys and hide they're corpses in his basement.

Mass Killers definitely take the cake. Even more though, I would say Suiciders are more interesting than the both, but Suicide and Mass Killing kinda goes hand in hand.

I don't usually find serial killers to be an interesting topic. It feels boring and repetitive, especially seeing how their motives are nearly identical (either sexual pleasure or thrill.) As Cadaver said, I have no clue on how bitches watch documentaries on them all day.

On the other hand, one serial killer that catches my interest is Anatoly Onoprienko, a Ukrainian serial mass murderer.

7.62×39mm wrote:

I don't usually find serial killers to be an interesting topic. It feels boring and repetitive, especially seeing how their motives are nearly identical (either sexual pleasure or thrill.) As Cadaver said, I have no clue on how bitches watch documentaries on them all day.

On the other hand, one serial killer that catches my interest is Anatoly Onoprienko, a Ukrainian serial mass murderer.

Have you heard of Yang Xinhai? Very similar to Onoprienko.

Techv4921 wrote:

7.62×39mm wrote:

I don't usually find serial killers to be an interesting topic. It feels boring and repetitive, especially seeing how their motives are nearly identical (either sexual pleasure or thrill.) As Cadaver said, I have no clue on how bitches watch documentaries on them all day.

On the other hand, one serial killer that catches my interest is Anatoly Onoprienko, a Ukrainian serial mass murderer.

Have you heard of Yang Xinhai? Very similar to Onoprienko.

Yes, forgot about that guy. Chinese killers are always interesting to me

As long as it is multiple homicide the flavour is not too important.

I find spree killers more interesting usually, because spree murders often result from poor mental health that explodes suddenly and often have more interesting motives that don’t have to do with money or sadism. The perpetrators also usually don’t give two fucks about getting caught, and if they are captured alive, will usually admit responsibility, though they may not feel remorse.

I like the intelligence of serial killer like Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway and Ted Kazyksky, but also crazed shooters like James Holmes, Nikolas Cruz, Martin Bryant and the Columbine Shooters, and enigmas like Adam Lanza.

Spree killers definitely, I only find a handful of serial killers slightly inetresting, and they all have pretty similar backgrounds, plain motives and they are harder to relate to.

Spree killers, simply because they have to make an insanely detailed plan for someone thing that only lasts a couple of minutes

Serial killers are lame. Everyone knows that mass murderers are the cool kids

Why not both? I'm interested in serial killers and spree killers, but I've done more research on spree killers

Yes I research both. Generally speaking they have different motivations I think.