Does a mass murderers age effect the way you feel about a mass murder?

I have to admit it does for me. I have barely researched or cared anything on the Las Vegas shooting since I found out the guy was older than my grandma. If the Las Vegas shooter was a younger person teens. 20's. 30's. I probably would've put more attempt into finding more information. Maybe it's just the lack of information the old man left behind? Idk curious to hear from others?

Explains why so many teens relate to Eric and Dylan when an older man who killed many more people gets completely overlooked. I’m 19 years old and I find Stephen paddock very interesting and I’ve researched him a lot. Maybe I’m different, but who knows

For me, no the age doesn't change my level of interest in the mass murderer. I am sure that the age might effect how some people (especially teenagers) are able to sympathize with certain killers. I would be more interested in Paddock if there was any real information to actually be interested in, his age is irrelevant.

No the circumstances matter

It doesn't change my interest in the case itself. I'm interested in Aurora and Parkland because of the trial etc..

However if the murderers are under a certain age i do feel more empathy and wonder what happened to make such young kids so angry. How did they get their weapons etc...

Screamingophelia wrote:

It doesn't change my interest in the case itself. I'm interested in Aurora and Parkland because of the trial etc..

However if the murderers are under a certain age i do feel more empathy and wonder what happened to make such young kids so angry. How did they get their weapons etc...

Yeah, I understand that for sure. Super young kids like the Arkansas kids, I would think anyone would be interested in learning more why such young kids wanted to do what they did, I think one was 11, idk but I seem to remember they were very young. On the older end I think it would have to be a woman to capture my attention, maybe that's weird but it's real, if a 65 year old woman committed the LV massacre I would've been like wtf!!! that's my grandma! but a 64 year old man just didn't do anything for me, I felt bad for the victims and their families obviously, but as for wanting to learn more about the killer nah, and when it came out he really didn't leave much behind it just hindered my motivation to learn more, even more!

DanielGardner wrote:

Explains why so many teens relate to Eric and Dylan when an older man who killed many more people gets completely overlooked. I’m 19 years old and I find Stephen paddock very interesting and I’ve researched him a lot. Maybe I’m different, but who knows

I am also interested in Stephen Paddock. I even had a phase when I look at independent research of the Las Vegas shooting. My favorite YouTube channel related to the shooting was Mr Visual.

AmericaMan wrote:

DanielGardner wrote:

Explains why so many teens relate to Eric and Dylan when an older man who killed many more people gets completely overlooked. I’m 19 years old and I find Stephen paddock very interesting and I’ve researched him a lot. Maybe I’m different, but who knows

I am also interested in Stephen Paddock. I even had a phase when I look at independent research of the Las Vegas shooting. My favorite YouTube channel related to the shooting was Mr Visual.

For you and others who've studied Paddock, why do you think he did it? and why did he choose the concert he did? I watched a little doc and it said he had 2 rooms booked one for the concert he shot at and another for "life is beautiful" I believe? which I think would've been very ironic and left a lot of open ended questions if he shot up a concert entitled life is beautiful.

dereknocturnal wrote:

AmericaMan wrote:

DanielGardner wrote:

Explains why so many teens relate to Eric and Dylan when an older man who killed many more people gets completely overlooked. I’m 19 years old and I find Stephen paddock very interesting and I’ve researched him a lot. Maybe I’m different, but who knows

I am also interested in Stephen Paddock. I even had a phase when I look at independent research of the Las Vegas shooting. My favorite YouTube channel related to the shooting was Mr Visual.

For you and others who've studied Paddock, why do you think he did it? and why did he choose the concert he did? I watched a little doc and it said he had 2 rooms booked one for the concert he shot at and another for "life is beautiful" I believe? which I think would've been very ironic and left a lot of open ended questions if he shot up a concert entitled life is beautiful.

   I honestly think the motive could be that Paddock felt bored or dissatisfied about his life, or he felt insignificant. The boredom theory can be related to how much licenses this guy had, yet he never really did anything related to them. He might have believed that doing a mass shooting can bring some sort of satisfaction in his degrading life. After all, there were multiple factors that probably made Paddock do the shooting. One example can be the disease he got at an old age. The disease, according to an interview with Bruce Paddock, makes you lose your ability to walk. Stephen Paddock was described by the FBI as a controlling man who used people, and losing the ability to walk would be a great slap to the face to his pride and feeling of control in his life. This would lead to the second theory about Paddock feeling like he was insignificant to the people he wants to feel superior over. This might explain why he did the shooting.

   The shooting can be the last moment where he finally have the control he used to possess when he maintained his money through unethical means (According to the lvmpd report, an interview with Eric Paddock implied that Stephen Paddock cheated and completed his family’s taxes. Eric believed that the missing hard drives would contain the evidence of tax evasion). I believe Stephen Paddock didn’t leave a suicide note because he wouldn’t care about leaving a motive about the shooting, if anything he just want people to pay attention or investigate him. He just wants to assert the last of his power on the crowds of people below him, the people that wants to hear about his motive, and himself when he put the revolver in his mouth. This area he was shooting from would be symbolic to this whole scenario. As a man with a room to himself, a shit ton of ammunition, an oblivious crowd below him, and cameras surrounding the hallways, he would relive his more fortunate youth for a last time, through different means. This shooting would be the last thing he would excel at as a controlling child prodigy (Apparently the guy’s story was a rags to riches story, according to his brother).

    Personally, my current mindset is stuck in the second theory. But when it comes to choosing his shooting location, I believe he either didn’t feel like shooting up “life is beautiful” or some complications happened during the middle of planning and he had to resort to a different concert.

Yes. I don't like juvenile mass murderers. From juvenile I interested only in Tim.

In terms of extra sympathy, no. Whether they are 10 years old or 100, a mass killer is a mass killer.

I usually look into younger mass shooters who are in their late teens or early twenties, maybe because I find them more relatable. I don't have much interest in ones like Sutherland springs or Las Vegas.

Woundfucker wrote:

I usually look into younger mass shooters who are in their late teens or early twenties, maybe because I find them more relatable. I don't have much interest in ones like Sutherland springs or Las Vegas.

Besides Seung which others ? I honestly think the Older ones are slightly more Tolerable and Mature and less messed up (besides devin kelley) and seem to have more insight and reassurance within their reasons and beliefs than teenagers and tweens suffering hormones at the moment that and the European Ones are Slightly better than the American ones during this time either way : West is king

Viotileaquaavianz wrote:

Woundfucker wrote:

I usually look into younger mass shooters who are in their late teens or early twenties, maybe because I find them more relatable. I don't have much interest in ones like Sutherland springs or Las Vegas.

Besides Seung which others ? I honestly think the Older ones are slightly more Tolerable and Mature and less messed up (besides devin kelley) and seem to have more insight and reassurance within their reasons and beliefs than teenagers and tweens suffering hormones at the moment that and the European Ones are Slightly better than the American ones during this time either way : West is king

I definitely see why'd you feel that way, a lot of younger mass shooters regret what they did like Kip Kinkel. Adult mass shooters like Tarrant and Roof don't seem too have any regrets though. I'm pretty interested in Dylann Roof and Adam Lanza, Adams the mass shooter I was first interested in.

for me, it definitely does. i think age brings maturity and when i see a shooter who is so young, it will make me more sympathetic. i think that there is a difference between a seventeen y/o who brings a shotgun to their own school and a thirty y/o shooting up a mosque. i think younger shooters are more impulsive, often acting on emotions and urgency, which is much more understandable for me than a shooting fueled by hate of a group of people. but even for cases like las vegas, i struggle to have as much sympathy. i think it's because they had so many more opportunities to get help, to change their mind, to understand the value of human life, when these kids often don't. the timeline with young shooters is tight, they never get the chance to live their lives and see outside of the bubble that they're in.

Yes. My favorite mass shooters are in their teens or early 20s. If Paddock was about 20 I would have been more interested in him.

I always feel worse about shootings where the perpetrators are young kids or pre-teens. The Colegio Cervantes shooting especially got to me due to the perpetrator being only 11. If he was 18 or 19 I would have overlooked it but Betts being so young just made me extremely miserable when I studied it.

I believe that age is a factor in how people are generally viewed. Besides, there is a huge generational divide as of now, and struggles tend to be generational. Since I am around the same age as many famous shooters it is easier to relate to them.

Younger killers are fascinating since they are the "true victims" if any violence were to occur. Younger children are subjugated by their parents and their biology. What I mean by that is younger humans are slower to develop and are physically weaker thus more likely to be victims of whatever society forces them to go through, since adults make all the choices for them. They are the last in line from whatever "uncaused caused" there is. So it's interesting when a child has to resort to physical force to solve their problems since they get that "one" chance to overpower other people.

I guess it's because I hated being a kid but I have mixed feelings about communicating with people younger than me now since I'm in a different position.

I like older shooters like James Huberty or Paddock