Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How ridiculous and off subject, the crews that bombed hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be SERIAL KILLERS unless they continued to do so.
There was a guy in Russia who killed thirty some people travelling by train. The authorities never linked them up until he confessed. Likewise in Britain. In many countries the police don't have the tools tgo link murders
I agree and it couldn't even be define as mass murder since it was a war. On this board people bring up serial killers and mass murders which are two different kinds of people.
I agree.
But you forgot one more: USA -> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The USA was the only country wich launched an atomic weapon on a civilian population in world history.
And? Since we were the first to develop the atomic weapon, and if Japan or Germany or any other country had beat us to the punch, then try and imagine the results!
We wouldn't be sitting at our desks posting on this thread!
In most countries they don't even keep accurate counts of murders. The mexican government as a example does not relate the murders and burning of so many females as acts of the same person or group along the border.There has been numerous stories about the lack of any real investigation into these border area murders.They alos have gone on for years. But then even i this country the serial killer has not been recodnised for many years, It took a long time in the manson murders to connect them altho they were handled by neighboring agencies.There is no telling now accuarte the FBI major crime stats are with so many crimes like assault not reported for various reasons or still no report made by police in many areas of the country.
I agree.
But you forgot one more: USA -> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The USA was the only country wich launched an atomic weapon on a civilian population in world history.
Only because we beat Germany to the punch. If you think the world would have been better had they finished developing theirs first, well, then I don't know what to tell you.
Oh, and notice Japan has behaved itself ever since? Funny coincidence, huh? The unambiguous message was "don't start wars that threaten the survival of whole nations if you don't want your s#*t seriously messed up." It's a message that's been well-heeded for 60 years now. So don't give me this "mass murder" crap.
And? Since we were the first to develop the atomic weapon, and if Japan or Germany or any other country had beat us to the punch, then try and imagine the results!
We wouldn't be sitting at our desks posting on this thread!
I do not agree your point of view. There was no need to bomb Japan with atomic weapons since the war was over. The Germany has already surrendered and the Europe was occupied by the allies.
It was only a matter of little time to Japan surrender too.
However, the USA had developed "the bomb" and would want to test it, so used the argument that was to "save more lifes".
It was enough to stifle Japan for a few weeks or months more, and it would surrender.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
Because Americans (especially us White people) feel entitled to own a 7 bedroom house and drive a Mercedes. Anything less just isn't acceptable.
While that rich American was flying his private plane into an IRS headquarters millions of homeless people were begging for food in the streets of India. I don't care if this guy got screwed over by the IRS he was still better off than 99% of other people in the world.
Because Americans (especially us White people) feel entitled to own a 7 bedroom house and drive a Mercedes. Anything less just isn't acceptable.
While that rich American was flying his private plane into an IRS headquarters millions of homeless people were begging for food in the streets of India. I don't care if this guy got screwed over by the IRS he was still better off than 99% of other people in the world.
Well most of us white Americans don't own mercedes or big mansons. That said I think entitlment may be found more common in mass muders and less common in serial killers. Who say their victims deserved to be shot or blown up. And as I said mass murder is not just an American thing. I think world culture gives people this entitlment thinking.
The US has 1 serial killer for every 2, 511, 097 people.
The UK has 1 serial killer for every 1, 507, 053 people.
Australia has 1 serial killer for every 1, 584, 642.
However, these numbers are based on current populations and the total number of serial killers to date. What would be more accurate would be if I averaged the population between the years of the first recorded serial killer to the most recent.
White males are the majority of serial killers. For some reason, when a white male snaps he "loses it." People are going to die, in mass quantities, as highlighted in other posts. Is it stress related? Something intrinisic? I don't know. Oddly though, lately, we are starting to see more black males, so is the race connection still valid. Regardless of race, the location is normally in the US, which basically confirms the prior statement, this is an "US product."
BUT, I will close by asking, how effective are the law enforcement communcation tools in those other countries. Are there alot of unanswered murders in for example, India?
The US has 1 serial killer for every 2, 511, 097 people.
The UK has 1 serial killer for every 1, 507, 053 people.
Australia has 1 serial killer for every 1, 584, 642.
However, these numbers are based on current populations and the total number of serial killers to date. What would be more accurate would be if I averaged the population between the years of the first recorded serial killer to the most recent.
How, exactly, is "serial killer" defined for the purposes of this statistic? What is the cutoff point at which one is not admitted to the category? What is the minimum number of victims? What us the minimum interval between victims? Does this include only killers proven to have had serial victims, or also those convicted of only one, but presumed to have been responsible for others?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
