There are many killers in the world, some are more high profile than others, Dennis Rader, Timothy McVay, Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and others are examples of the kind of killer we seem to fear most. However, in relation to the number of kills they've racked up they are lightweights compared to gangsters and regular criminals. Why the difference in recognition? Is it the amount of work they put into their art, or the theatrics of it? The people are just as dead, however the impact is totally different. Most people simply ignore "regular" deaths and accept them as fact, they write off the dead as numbers and the killers as minor nuisances, and yet they get scared when there are people who kill methodically, serially or commit terrorist acts. It's not who's dying surely enough, it's not who's killing because if these people killed like any mugger or murderer they'd barely be noticed, and yet their method burns their names into history. So what is the real difference between ritualized, killings, and any other kind of murder? Why are they so different? You're less likely to be killed by one but they inspire the greatest fear.
Because they show the person thinks differently to us, therefore cannot be understood. That means they cannot be reasoned with like normal people. Another reason: It disturbs us that anyone could do something so disgusting and inhumane. For cases like the towers, it is because the US has never been struck like that before.
The difference is, some killers take it to the next level, try new things, and put thier own twists on thier killings. Others are not so creative. The reason more creative and exotic methods get recognized more is because it's something different and when people see or hear about something out of the ordinary they want to know more and they become interested, and thats why serial killers and that sort of thing gain more recognition.
It is a good point, I can't even think of a concrete answer to it. Maybe it is the way we are killed we fear more than being killed. Gang murders are committed by a range of people, evidence is not usually conclusive as to say which gang member killed so many people. While the Serial killer is an individual (in most cases) and we fear them more because it is only one or two people murdering at such a high level compared to gang murders which can be caused by hundreds of different people. And I guess the media has something to do with it, they make the serial killers killing more dramatic and horrific compared to a person getting shot or stabbed. Murder drams are more popular now than ever because of how people are killed, take the CSI series, the first few series involved simple stabbings and shooting nothing out of the ordinary, but as time went on those types of murders became repetitive for the larger audience, so script writers began expanding ways to kill with serial killers and psychotic murderers. This reflects the news, years ago we were astonished by the number of murders that involved the guns and knives, but now we became bored of the repetitive nature of murders, the news had to make it more interesting getting stories on more horrific people and their types of murders. This type of question interests me the most; it's hard to tell why 'insane' people kill others. Psychotic killers kill for many reasons, most because they have no real sense of good and evil, add to the fact they (usually) have a difficult childhood and they aren't able to control their emotions easily such as anger and lust, they have no real control on their primal killing instinct. While gang members don't kill for any real reason, they kill for 'business' and so that other people respect and fear them, they know the difference between good and evil, but they don't seem to care. The gang members to me seem more psychotic then any serial killer.
The reason people find those murders so frightening, when it's more likey that, if you were to be murdered, it'd be from a less heard of killer, or a gang, is because they're different. They stick out, and people listen to the news more when it's not totally monotonous. Another reason might be that it's human nature to be scared by what is different, and obviously these killers have a different way of thinking than most, so it's easier to be frightened by them. My post is basically what everyone else said; but in my own words...
I don't think the amount of work that goes into it is what adds recognition. The methods that get burned into our minds are usually the ones that recquire the most gruesome or cruel way of thinking. Getting killed in a driveby won't keep you thinking for years to come. Okay, they angered the wrong types of people or were at the wrong place at the wrong time. There you go. Terrorist attacks are so cruel. Those types of people don't value human life one bit. But when you think of murders like that of Elizabeth Short..."severely mutilated, cut in half, and drained of blood. Her face was slashed from the corners of her mouth toward her ears, and she was very carefully posed, with her eyes open, her hands over her head and her elbows bent at right angles" don't you kind of cringe at the thought? There's your difference.
A drive by shooting in my opinion is the same as many terrorist methods, they are doing the same thing, attacking people to inspire fear and assert control. In fact this mass method of murder proves that to them human life is nothing but a way of herding their cattle. To these people a person is nothing but an object to be used towards their own goals. Not only that, the sheer numbers that are killed by gangs, random murderers, rapists, and your average muggers far outweigh those that die from the actions of homegrown terrorists and serial killers. Not only that gangs are essentially organized militias that have taken certain areas of cities for their own. The police can't stop them in some cases and their ability to ruin lives via other illicit activities adds to their power, but that is another topic I'm afraid. What I'm saying is the attitude in either case is just as awful and the ultimate results are the same, but the numbers strongly favor one side; so logically wouldn't that side be more fear inspiring than the other?
Okay I see what you're trying to get at. You're basically asking, if there's a greater chance that you or any person in general could be killed in one way, why is it that less frequent and more abnormal ways instill greater fear in society. Well I had to think about it for awhile and I can't come up with an answer that would leave this settled, but just think about the movies that are out there now and have come out before. Do the ones about gang killings leave you with nightmares? Or do movies like Saw and The Strangers make you check all the locks and close the curtains before bed? All I can say is the media pushes us farther onto one side. Also I think people have been thinking this way for awhile, because they have it wired into their brains that one way is just a part of life.
There are a few reasons why homicide done by a drive by shooting vs terrorist bombing attack vs serial killer murder are leveled as different. Drive by shootings and other gang activity generally happen in areas where there has been a lot of gang warfare and violence in the past. Commonly, the murders that transpire are 'just another number' to those who are not from these areas because it is assumed this is the way of life for the people within the confines. To those who live with gangs and such around them and have seen deaths, it is not just another day. They are living the life others say that they could avoid simply by moving or doing something about it like dealing with the cops. Outsiders believe people -want- to live like this because of the way the media, rap music, etc plays it all up. Some people even travel down to go live some excitement for a while knowing they can go back to their cushy houses and they don't have to worry so much. This is basically disassociation. The same happens when we think about how Palestinians and Israelites live with some groups being stupid on either side and doing excessive violence that makes the regular people suffer. People outside assume it's a problem that is there by choice because it's gone on so long and if they don't want it to be that way, these people could solve their problems. Many people don't get what truly is going on in an environment they are not accustomed to. If we hear about terrorist activities in regions like the Middle East, India, etc, who cares? They deal with it all the time. When it hits the European areas and the U.S. however, there's something seriously wrong... Because we aren't used to that. We live more peaceful lives in certain ways and wars that we may be in are on other people's turfs so that we don't have to have the agony at our homelands. So when 9/11 happened or the train catastrophe in the UK, let's face it...we weren't desensitized to it because it's in our neck of the woods. We just aren't used to our 'terrorists' doing so bad and it's always been small scale for us unless some terrorists steal planes with passengers from our countries. Oh then we are up in arms. If they hijack people in the Middle East though...that's their life way. We can say 'damn that sucks' but really we aren't going to be so horrified because it always happens. Conflicts with Israel vs Palestinians, Pakistan vs India etc are old news and we've adjusted to it. People were much more horrified when we realized how bad Rwanda was with 1000s of dead being dumped in the water, mass murders etc because it was so grand and well, not many people think that somewhere in Africa would be so bad. What's more irritating to know is that the Rwanda people accuse the French government of involvement and conspiracies. It makes us pay attention, for those of us who do at any rate. Spree killers also get a lot of attention because they hit areas where it's 'inappropriate' to hit. No one would probably cry out so much if a spree killer showed up in a gangland area and popped off 5 gang members in vengeance, wounding 10 others. It's part of their lifeway. However, a spree killer hitting a college campus or high school or hospital...oh yeah. Why? Because these areas aren't supposed to promote or have violence like that. These people would be considered 'innocent' of the lifeway that merits a dangerous possible confrontation. We want our kids to feel safe and well, us to feel safe in certain atmospheres. We like to feel that these areas are comfort zones and well, sometimes they just may not be and people need a dose of reality. Really, spree killers in a lot of ways can be likened to terrorists and quite a few are terrorists but also some are just darn well depressed people that want to leave their mark on the world and be famous one way because they can't another. Serial killers though bring out the demented. There's liking to shoot up stuff and then there's a thrill to murder'. Some serial killers even work in gangs and the mafia etc because they get assignments to kill and it makes it nice and easy. Their macabre natures not only are about killing but also about how to torment people, manipulate people to killing themselves or others, twisting people's minds, making them pathetic, listening to them scream in agony as if listening to their favorite song, and do a ton of stuff I cannot describe on this forum. People complain and say waterboarding is torture...they know nothing. Serial killers are, though intelligence varies, thinkers in the darkest way and often set up lairs to do what they want to do to people. They also love to at times show off their works and toy with people's emotions because they don't feel them the same. Some make 'art' like what happened with Black Dahlia as mentioned above by someone. Most keep trophies of some sort. They not only mutilate a body while it's living but also often times when it's dead. . I could go on and on and get very morbid but I think we get the clue. They have no fear of the law. They have very little if any conscience at all. They can listen to people scream etc and not care one iota. Some even 'get off' on it. This is what creeps people out. A gang shooting, spree killer, terrorist..the person still probably has a conscience and has a family he/she loves or wishes they had those things. A serial killer is using his family and exposed life as a cover. Terrorists and spree killers forsake their consciences to do some heinous deeds that will usually take their lives after in a grand finale. Serial killers wait to get caught and even play with cops over it. A serial killer can calmly tell you how he eviscerated some victims and did horrible things just as relaxed as you can talk about your favorite video game and why you love it. If that isn't enough to tell the difference between murders etc, I don't know what is.
I think it's because of the reputation and integrity that the most serial killers set up for themselves that makes them more threatening than most normal gangs. From most normal people, gangsters and mobs are very common. The amount of damage they cause is quite similar up to a point which people start disregard it's importancy since it's kinda same-y. Though not all gangs and thugs are rounded up in jail, a lot of them are broken up and caught by the government. I guess that kinda gives people more assurance that help is there which cause them to worry less despite the fact that gangs still run rampant a lot more than those serial killers. As for the bigger fishes, they strike whenever its less expected but often a LOT more damaging than most gangs or regular killers can conjure. And seeing how they're still loose and can strike anytime, people fear the unknown. So I guess it like what most everyone else has been saying...
The others have already given good explanations, but I don't have enough time to read them all, so I will put it simply. Basicly, gangsters, street robbers, and all of that stuff, they are doing it because they are greedy, and are just killing for personal gain. The people who make all these special killing statements (like all the peoples who you mentioned), killing off through serial killings, ect, are doing something far different. It sucks to say, but fact of life is that there is a big difference between killing for personal gain, and killing for sport. If someone is killing for their own personal gain, then it is nothing special, because all they are doing is taking a gun and shooting someone. THe people who you are describing on the other hand though kill for the sport of it. They hold intellegence, and they do such fear striking things, that their actions strike fear into us. But whenever it comes to fear, though we shiver and cry infront of it, we are indeed lured by it, and are fascinated with it. That is why we treat them so differently. I wish I could give a few examples, but I actually gtg now :sweatdrop: I hope that gives a good clue that hasn't been explained yet
Everyone seems to agree that the numbers are less of a factor than the moral, emotional, and general ethical objections they have to serial killing in particular. Spree killers, are terrorist, foreign or otherwise tend more towards the way of the run of the mill killing as far as how they're viewed, with the exception that they are considered quite a bit more atrocious because of their venue and message. In the end it really comes down to perception, information, and synthesis of the two into an answering opinion. All of these people committing crimes seem to lack morals or at least the will to prevent oneself from killing, but the level of self investment in the killing itself seems to make a distinct difference in the way these murders are viewed. I suppose the sickening thoughts and notions going through a serial killers mind would be more distasteful than those of a mentally and emotionally disturbed teen, gangster, robber, or a religious zealot, even when in the end the effects of such things are less wide spread. The effects themselves are also less forcefully impacting the world, these other people are controlling parts of or whole nations, imposing their will on others and killing those who think differently. I suppose it's my own sense of morality that makes this so hard to grasp, I see it all as killing, the result is the same, people are dead and a message is sent to those left alive. The danger of being killed by a serial killer is less, but the heinousness is greater I suppose, without any in depth knowledge it's hard to get a good picture of some things. I can only conclude, that that's the simple way the explanations making sense. I guess that's it for me, my question is answered to my satisfaction.
