Jordan Peterson describes the psychology of mass shooters.

[Jack]

I don't think you have more maniacs than anyone else, you just have them higher up.

Seriously, though, my guess would be the greater social injustices, the lack of universal healthcare, etc, but I don't know that. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you'd have more maniacs then anyone else.

Really don't think those things have anything at all to do with serial killers. Though it's not a horrible suggestion for any other type of murderer. Just have difficulty reconciling killers as having a conscience in instances of premeditation fits of rage. While psych professionals debate the cause of ASPD people, the larger leaning is accepted as genetic. During pioneer days, the US was a bit of a hotbed and even dumping gournd for other country's undesirables, so it's not illogical to consider a specialized gene pool was created which contains higher than average levels of anti-social predisposition.

Unlikely. Consider Australia as an opposing view.

It was Australia that led that line of thinking. In the previously posted Radford University link, while England is listed as second for the number of serial killers, Australia actually ranks second highest as a per capita ratio. The British were shipping prisoners to the colonies in the Americas for over 150 years before the American Revolution shifted them to begin sending prisoners to Australia; that's a lot of time to clear a bulk of genetic filth.

I still don't buy it. A significant portion of those shipped to Australia (or what is now the US) would have to have these genes - basically, a lot of them would have to be potential serial killers - but afaik, all kinds of criminals were transported, not just the killers.

It doesn't matter if some of them weren't killers; it's not as if the US is overrun, only disproportionate to other countries. A hundred-seventy years is a lot of of ethnic cleansing and dumping socially undesirable people into north America, before ever beginning exiles to Australia. The Americas caught the first wave of European exiles, so to say the Australian prisoners sent generations later were equally as bad is to deny the science that supports sociopathy being genetic. The US numbers are most notable, but there's still a few locations in that list with ratios 4-10 times greater than almost all of the other countries, and the US has either assimilated large numbers of those country's lowest social class, or they are likewise other countries which have also assimilated. So while the US is an extreme anomaly, Australia, England, Canada, and Scotland still stand out, and that doesn't support your theory about social justice and healthcare. It could just be coincidence, but supporting data has been provided for this genetic theory and can't personally accomplish that with sociological theories.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

How should I know why? Already said psychologists don't seem to know why. It just makes sense there are more regardless of why they come to be. Maybe MOSW is right and other countries catch them on the first kill. Though even when completely discounting guns, the US has still has double the number of murderers as countries normally compared to. If there aren't more killers simply because there are more maniacs here, then what? What is the reason you were suggesting why there are more?

Sorry Jack, I expressed myself poorly earlier. I wasn’t trying to say that other countries catch serial killers on their first kill.

What I was saying was that other countries may have a lot more serial killers than the figures show, but law enforcement authorities are not trained or skilled in recognizing them. So a serial killer might kill 10 people but only get busted for their 10th killing, or maybe their 7th killing, and the other killings go unsolved. Inept cops tend to realize that there is a serial killer operating when the media connects the dots and gives the serial killer a catchy name (like “The Yorkshire Ripper” or “The Granny Killer”) and starts publicizing the case, or when authorities finally catch a serial killer and find a bunch of souvenirs (could be their belongings or could be something more gruesome). Note that this is hypothetical, I don’t claim to have any evidence to back this up apart from a couple of specific cases that I can expand on if anyone is interested.

I also doubt that the US has more psychopaths than other countries. Why would the US have more psychopaths than Australia, for example? Both countries have populations that are built on immigration. We got plenty of Nazis after WW2 – the father of one of my best friends was a member of the SS recruited from Eastern Europe by the Nazis, who was sent to Australia after the war by his Allied captors who knew exactly what young SS recruits had been required to do. Not to mention that our original white immigrants were convicted criminals. 

[Jack]

How should I know why? Already said psychologists don't seem to know why. It just makes sense there are more regardless of why they come to be. Maybe MOSW is right and other countries catch them on the first kill. Though even when completely discounting guns, the US has still has double the number of murderers as countries normally compared to. If there aren't more killers simply because there are more maniacs here, then what? What is the reason you were suggesting why there are more?

Sorry Jack, I expressed myself poorly earlier. I wasn’t trying to say that other countries catch serial killers on their first kill.

What I was saying was that other countries may have a lot more serial killers than the figures show, but law enforcement authorities are not trained or skilled in recognizing them. So a serial killer might kill 10 people but only get busted for their 10th killing, or maybe their 7th killing, and the other killings go unsolved. Inept cops tend to realize that there is a serial killer operating when the media connects the dots and gives the serial killer a catchy name (like “The Yorkshire Ripper” or “The Granny Killer”) and starts publicizing the case, or when authorities finally catch a serial killer and find a bunch of souvenirs (could be their belongings or could be something more gruesome). Note that this is hypothetical, I don’t claim to have any evidence to back this up apart from a couple of specific cases that I can expand on if anyone is interested.

I also doubt that the US has more psychopaths than other countries. Why would the US have more psychopaths than Australia, for example? Both countries have populations that are built on immigration. We got plenty of Nazis after WW2 – the father of one of my best friends was a member of the SS recruited from Eastern Europe by the Nazis, who was sent to Australia after the war by his Allied captors who knew exactly what young SS recruits had been required to do. Not to mention that our original white immigrants were convicted criminals.

It's difficult to find stats on US total unsolved murder percentages. Though did find the current national average is 67% while it was 90% fifty years ago. Found a statement that the UK's total unsolved murders are about 25%, so it might not be a bad assumption that other countries may be more skilled in catching killers in the first place, and catching serial killers early would prevent them from being classified as serial killers. Explained the thoughts behind Australia in a previous post.

[odeon]

I don't think you have more maniacs than anyone else, you just have them higher up.

Seriously, though, my guess would be the greater social injustices, the lack of universal healthcare, etc, but I don't know that. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you'd have more maniacs then anyone else.

Really don't think those things have anything at all to do with serial killers. Though it's not a horrible suggestion for any other type of murderer. Just have difficulty reconciling killers as having a conscience in instances of premeditation fits of rage. While psych professionals debate the cause of ASPD people, the larger leaning is accepted as genetic. During pioneer days, the US was a bit of a hotbed and even dumping gournd for other country's undesirables, so it's not illogical to consider a specialized gene pool was created which contains higher than average levels of anti-social predisposition.

Unlikely. Consider Australia as an opposing view.

It was Australia that led that line of thinking. In the previously posted Radford University link, while England is listed as second for the number of serial killers, Australia actually ranks second highest as a per capita ratio. The British were shipping prisoners to the colonies in the Americas for over 150 years before the American Revolution shifted them to begin sending prisoners to Australia; that's a lot of time to clear a bulk of genetic filth.

I still don't buy it. A significant portion of those shipped to Australia (or what is now the US) would have to have these genes - basically, a lot of them would have to be potential serial killers - but afaik, all kinds of criminals were transported, not just the killers.

It doesn't matter if some of them weren't killers; it's not as if the US is overrun, only disproportionate to other countries. A hundred-seventy years is a lot of of ethnic cleansing and dumping socially undesirable people into north America, before ever beginning exiles to Australia. The Americas caught the first wave of European exiles, so to say the Australian prisoners sent generations later were equally as bad is to deny the science that supports sociopathy being genetic. The US numbers are most notable, but there's still a few locations in that list with ratios 4-10 times greater than almost all of the other countries, and the US has either assimilated large numbers of those country's lowest social class, or they are likewise other countries which have also assimilated. So while the US is an extreme anomaly, Australia, England, Canada, and Scotland still stand out, and that doesn't support your theory about social justice and healthcare. It could just be coincidence, but supporting data has been provided for this genetic theory and can't personally accomplish that with sociological theories.

Your numbers don't support genetics, either. You'd have to show that serial killing is a consequence of genes to start with and I don't think that has been done.

[Jack]

I don't think you have more maniacs than anyone else, you just have them higher up.

Seriously, though, my guess would be the greater social injustices, the lack of universal healthcare, etc, but I don't know that. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you'd have more maniacs then anyone else.

Really don't think those things have anything at all to do with serial killers. Though it's not a horrible suggestion for any other type of murderer. Just have difficulty reconciling killers as having a conscience in instances of premeditation fits of rage. While psych professionals debate the cause of ASPD people, the larger leaning is accepted as genetic. During pioneer days, the US was a bit of a hotbed and even dumping gournd for other country's undesirables, so it's not illogical to consider a specialized gene pool was created which contains higher than average levels of anti-social predisposition.

Unlikely. Consider Australia as an opposing view.

It was Australia that led that line of thinking. In the previously posted Radford University link, while England is listed as second for the number of serial killers, Australia actually ranks second highest as a per capita ratio. The British were shipping prisoners to the colonies in the Americas for over 150 years before the American Revolution shifted them to begin sending prisoners to Australia; that's a lot of time to clear a bulk of genetic filth.

I still don't buy it. A significant portion of those shipped to Australia (or what is now the US) would have to have these genes - basically, a lot of them would have to be potential serial killers - but afaik, all kinds of criminals were transported, not just the killers.

It doesn't matter if some of them weren't killers; it's not as if the US is overrun, only disproportionate to other countries. A hundred-seventy years is a lot of of ethnic cleansing and dumping socially undesirable people into north America, before ever beginning exiles to Australia. The Americas caught the first wave of European exiles, so to say the Australian prisoners sent generations later were equally as bad is to deny the science that supports sociopathy being genetic. The US numbers are most notable, but there's still a few locations in that list with ratios 4-10 times greater than almost all of the other countries, and the US has either assimilated large numbers of those country's lowest social class, or they are likewise other countries which have also assimilated. So while the US is an extreme anomaly, Australia, England, Canada, and Scotland still stand out, and that doesn't support your theory about social justice and healthcare. It could just be coincidence, but supporting data has been provided for this genetic theory and can't personally accomplish that with sociological theories.

Your numbers don't support genetics, either. You'd have to show that serial killing is a consequence of genes to start with and I don't think that has been done.

There is research supporting genetic correlation for killers in general though. You keep dismissing my suggestions without explaining or attempting to support your own suggestions.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

You keep attacking my suggestions without explaining or attempting to support your own suggestions.

Yeah, that's pretty much what odeot does.

[odeon]

I don't think you have more maniacs than anyone else, you just have them higher up.

Seriously, though, my guess would be the greater social injustices, the lack of universal healthcare, etc, but I don't know that. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you'd have more maniacs then anyone else.

Really don't think those things have anything at all to do with serial killers. Though it's not a horrible suggestion for any other type of murderer. Just have difficulty reconciling killers as having a conscience in instances of premeditation fits of rage. While psych professionals debate the cause of ASPD people, the larger leaning is accepted as genetic. During pioneer days, the US was a bit of a hotbed and even dumping gournd for other country's undesirables, so it's not illogical to consider a specialized gene pool was created which contains higher than average levels of anti-social predisposition.

Unlikely. Consider Australia as an opposing view.

It was Australia that led that line of thinking. In the previously posted Radford University link, while England is listed as second for the number of serial killers, Australia actually ranks second highest as a per capita ratio. The British were shipping prisoners to the colonies in the Americas for over 150 years before the American Revolution shifted them to begin sending prisoners to Australia; that's a lot of time to clear a bulk of genetic filth.

I still don't buy it. A significant portion of those shipped to Australia (or what is now the US) would have to have these genes - basically, a lot of them would have to be potential serial killers - but afaik, all kinds of criminals were transported, not just the killers.

It doesn't matter if some of them weren't killers; it's not as if the US is overrun, only disproportionate to other countries. A hundred-seventy years is a lot of of ethnic cleansing and dumping socially undesirable people into north America, before ever beginning exiles to Australia. The Americas caught the first wave of European exiles, so to say the Australian prisoners sent generations later were equally as bad is to deny the science that supports sociopathy being genetic. The US numbers are most notable, but there's still a few locations in that list with ratios 4-10 times greater than almost all of the other countries, and the US has either assimilated large numbers of those country's lowest social class, or they are likewise other countries which have also assimilated. So while the US is an extreme anomaly, Australia, England, Canada, and Scotland still stand out, and that doesn't support your theory about social justice and healthcare. It could just be coincidence, but supporting data has been provided for this genetic theory and can't personally accomplish that with sociological theories.

Your numbers don't support genetics, either. You'd have to show that serial killing is a consequence of genes to start with and I don't think that has been done.

There is research supporting genetic correlation for killers in general though. You keep dismissing my suggestions without explaining or attempting to support your own suggestions.

Sorry, not my intention at all, and apologies if I offended you.

I'm saying that I think a significant portion would have to be killers (with killer genes) for the theory to be valid. The US, though, has had immigrants from all over and of all kinds, spread over the entire continent, so a genetic explanation as widespread makes little sense to me.

[odeon]

You keep attacking my suggestions without explaining or attempting to support your own suggestions.

Yeah, that's pretty much what odeot does.

Poor little Scrappy. Feeling left out again? Why don't you go on bumping old threads again. Keeps you busy with something you know how to do.

[El]

Revenge, medical issues... Yes, sure, but then ffs, do something about it. Presumably the US isn't the only country with people with these kinds of problems so why is it that the mass shootings are so much more common there?

Make it harder for them to obtain guns. Fix your healthcare. Take care of your citizens. How hard can it be?

Spoken like the commie scandie that you are.  This is Murkah.  That shit is against god's plan for murkah.

(seriously though I think there's still a heavy influence of mcarthyism handicapping some of our sanity)

[El]

With serial killers I also wonder if there's anything to do with the U.S.'s geography/landscape/actual physical arrangement of people?  (Any of the studies reference this- do serial killers tend to be more focused in cities, or outside of them?)

I know that is a *component* of gun culture- to get super-simple about it, gun ownership is a different issue in more-rural america (where hunting is a big cultural thing, including identity, pastime, family bonding, etc and guns are inherently part of that) than in more-urban america.

[odeon]

Pretty sure there are multiple reasons to why but if I were to guess, social injustice would be on the top of my list.

[Jack]

I don't think you have more maniacs than anyone else, you just have them higher up.

Seriously, though, my guess would be the greater social injustices, the lack of universal healthcare, etc, but I don't know that. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you'd have more maniacs then anyone else.

Really don't think those things have anything at all to do with serial killers. Though it's not a horrible suggestion for any other type of murderer. Just have difficulty reconciling killers as having a conscience in instances of premeditation fits of rage. While psych professionals debate the cause of ASPD people, the larger leaning is accepted as genetic. During pioneer days, the US was a bit of a hotbed and even dumping gournd for other country's undesirables, so it's not illogical to consider a specialized gene pool was created which contains higher than average levels of anti-social predisposition.

Unlikely. Consider Australia as an opposing view.

It was Australia that led that line of thinking. In the previously posted Radford University link, while England is listed as second for the number of serial killers, Australia actually ranks second highest as a per capita ratio. The British were shipping prisoners to the colonies in the Americas for over 150 years before the American Revolution shifted them to begin sending prisoners to Australia; that's a lot of time to clear a bulk of genetic filth.

I still don't buy it. A significant portion of those shipped to Australia (or what is now the US) would have to have these genes - basically, a lot of them would have to be potential serial killers - but afaik, all kinds of criminals were transported, not just the killers.

It doesn't matter if some of them weren't killers; it's not as if the US is overrun, only disproportionate to other countries. A hundred-seventy years is a lot of of ethnic cleansing and dumping socially undesirable people into north America, before ever beginning exiles to Australia. The Americas caught the first wave of European exiles, so to say the Australian prisoners sent generations later were equally as bad is to deny the science that supports sociopathy being genetic. The US numbers are most notable, but there's still a few locations in that list with ratios 4-10 times greater than almost all of the other countries, and the US has either assimilated large numbers of those country's lowest social class, or they are likewise other countries which have also assimilated. So while the US is an extreme anomaly, Australia, England, Canada, and Scotland still stand out, and that doesn't support your theory about social justice and healthcare. It could just be coincidence, but supporting data has been provided for this genetic theory and can't personally accomplish that with sociological theories.

Your numbers don't support genetics, either. You'd have to show that serial killing is a consequence of genes to start with and I don't think that has been done.

There is research supporting genetic correlation for killers in general though. You keep dismissing my suggestions without explaining or attempting to support your own suggestions.

Sorry, not my intention at all, and apologies if I offended you.

I'm saying that I think a significant portion would have to be killers (with killer genes) for the theory to be valid. The US, though, has had immigrants from all over and of all kinds, spread over the entire continent, so a genetic explanation as widespread makes little sense to me.

It's not offensive as much as annoying. You did it again, by the way. It makes sense a significant portion then would have to be killers, for a significant percentage of the population to be killers now. It's not significant as a statistic, only greater than other countries.

[Jack]

With serial killers I also wonder if there's anything to do with the U.S.'s geography/landscape/actual physical arrangement of people?  (Any of the studies reference this- do serial killers tend to be more focused in cities, or outside of them?)

I know that is a *component* of gun culture- to get super-simple about it, gun ownership is a different issue in more-rural america (where hunting is a big cultural thing, including identity, pastime, family bonding, etc and guns are inherently part of that) than in more-urban america.

The geography may have some value when comparing to European countries, in considering how a person can get away with killing so many before getting caught. Didn't find anything quickly on urban vs rural, but that's an interesting question and will look some more later.

[odeon]

Sorry, not my intention at all, and apologies if I offended you.

I'm saying that I think a significant portion would have to be killers (with killer genes) for the theory to be valid. The US, though, has had immigrants from all over and of all kinds, spread over the entire continent, so a genetic explanation as widespread makes little sense to me.

It's not offensive as much as annoying. You did it again, by the way. It makes sense a significant portion then would have to be killers, for a significant percentage of the population to be killers now. It's not significant as a statistic, only greater than other countries.

This suggests that while there might be such a thing as a killer gene, killers are both "born and made", meaning that we'd again have to look at causes other than genetic to explain the differences in statistics if the population with the killer gene is reasonably evenly distributed - and I think it is.

I certainly don't know how to show that it isn't. Most studies appear to discuss other factors.

[El]

Pretty sure there are multiple reasons to why but if I were to guess, social injustice would be on the top of my list.

Oh it's absolutely high up in the mix; was just wondering about geography as a potential additional factor I've never heard explored/discussed.