Talk:Spree killer

Older comments

It is very unkind to erase someone else's additions and don't even leave a word in the discussion to ssay why you did it! Anyhow, I redid my additions using the history tool. The recent wave of berserking in USA is important and certainly belongs here. Regards: Tamas Feher <etomcat@freemail.hu>

I left an explanation in the edit summary notes. If you can use the history tool you should be able to see those comments. The explanation still stands, so I am reverting again. It has nothing to do with being unkind and everything to do with keeping Wikipedia professional and encyclopedic.

Again valid data for 2005 has been removed. You cannot hide that something very bad is going on in USA this month! The world media (CNN, BBC, AFP) is full of the news of rampages. School, church, courtroom. It is an undisputable fact that two dozen people were killed this way. It is a vain effort to purge info to preserve US public image. [unsigned anon user, same as above]

So I redid the recent data, look at it. One more removal and the case goes to Wiki's Grand Council and the Google, I swear. [unsigned anon user, same as above]

Censorship? Oh for crying out loud. Adding mentions to spree killings is fine and expected, I have no problem with that, but your previous edits were not at all encyclopedic. It was not a question of trying to hide anything, it was a question of what you said being something an encyclopedia wouldn't print. Hopefully you'll calm down now. It would have been amusing to see you try to take it to the "Grand Council" and "the Google" though. DreamGuy 22:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Does this count?

Is it enough for multiple locations if the murders and the suicide is not done at the same place?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/31/911.call.ap/index.html

Where's the Columbine entry??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.231.194 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased/Correct vocabulary

>In many countries, the acts of spree killers have been catalysts >for lessening the gun rights of private individuals in the gun politics debate,

This is biased wording. There are no "gun rights" anywhere outside the USA. Some countries of the world allow citizens to keep guns to some degree, others do not at all for diverse reasons. But no country outside USA thinks private gun ownership is in the same category as E=mc^2 or PI=3.14159265359... i.e. undeniable natural truth.

En.Wikipedia is an english-language encyclopedia, not an american encyclopedia and therefore should not use US-biased language. There are 6.25 billion people on Earth and only 300 million of them are Americans. 195.70.32.136 12:02, 15 February 2006.

While it may be appreciated how some might take issue with or become emotionally upset over the legal right of American citizens to keep and bear arms, there is nothing specifically biased in the statement quoted above, i.e., "In many countries, the acts of spree killers have been catalysts for lessening the gun rights of private individuals in the gun politics debate." This statement is an unbiased fact. Anti-gun lobbyists in other countries do use spree killings as evidence to support their political and social aims. Granted, most documented spree killings occur in the United States, but to the extent that the anti-gun lobby in countries outside the USA do cite such incidents in their efforts to change policy and legislation, the statement can be considered factual.

Such incidents include those perpetrated by Australians Martin Bryant (Port Arthur Massacre) and Wade Frankum (Strathfield Massacre), Scot Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane massacre), Englishman Michael Robert Ryan (Hungerford massacre), Canadian Marc Lepine (École Polytechnique Massacre), and New Zealander David Gray (Aramoana massacre). Each of these non-American spree shooting incidents was used by proponents of stricter gun control to further their agendas in their respective countries.

The writer of the "Biased vocabulary" post in this discussion should check his or her facts before publishing biased Anti-American statements.

Jay Black 06:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is with the wording of "gun rights". The statement itself is generally true, but it is also a bit emotive. Hopefully the changes I have made are not so contentious. I have also made significant formatting changes to make it more consistent. Also I have removed links to redirect pages and pages about killers that link to the incident they are infamous for. I consider it unlikely that a page will ever be made purely dedicated to the individuals rather than the incidents and therefore have removed the links that are redundant - either because they are red or link to the incident. If anyone objects please do not simply revert but change the specific things that you disagree with. Zarboki 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is over one word: rights. User:195.70.32.136 is correct in the fact that America is one of very few nations that recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental human truth; e.g. enshrined in the constitution. Other countries, like Canada, where I live, allow their citizens to have guns, but it is a privilege, not a right. Saying this is not anti-American. Let's not bicker and argue about gun policy, or succumb to petty name-calling. We're not saying guns should or should not be a right, we're simply stating fact. Rustalot42684 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is fallacious to imply that the term "gun rights" necessarily reflects, on the part of the user, the assumption that they are _inalienable_ rights. "Gun rights" is a concept, an idea. One can use the phrase "abortion rights" without believing in them, likewise with "gun rights." Granted, it is sloppy to use this term in such a manner in this article because of the confusion it can cause, and therefore Rustalot's reponse is basically sound. But the first unnamed user is overreacting to the issue at hand, with sarcastic comparisons to the theory of reletavity, motivated by an obvious anti-gun agenda on a discussion page where, by Wikipedia's own rules, it doesn't belong. His comments were indeed anti-American because of the resentment they expressed, not because of their request for accuracy. -- Andrew MacEwen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmacewen (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

freeway shootings

Do freeway shootings count? Chris 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "Spree Killer"

If the definition of spree killer is killings at two or more locations then the people listed here should reflect that. Serial killer has an unsourced definition of spree killers as people who "commits multiple murders in different locations over a period of time that may vary from a few hours to several days. Unlike serial killers, however, they do not revert to their normal behavior in between slayings."

Having read all of the entries I have removed the entries I fell do not qualify under the current definition. Most of the deleted entries are mass murderers. The ones in which the shootings all occur in the one building are borderline so as a rule of thumb I left the ones that were in more than one room but maybe I was being generous?

Andrew Cunanan is an interesting one because under the current definition, his murders do not count as spree killings but they do under the definition in Serial killer (and don't fit that definition of serial killings).

Someone else will have to check out the red linked entries because I'm going to bed

Zarboki 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd check in every so often and I see a few red-linked entries are still there, oh well, I guess that will have to wait until I get home in December.

I just did a little clean-up. There is no point introducing new terms such as lone wolf that are not defined in the intro - especially if they are linked to a disambig page and the most likely link (Lone wolf terrorists) does not actually fit with the example. Also I don't think it is really a competition as to who can get the most killings in a school massacre so changed the wording. Zarboki 10:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Spree Killer vs Mass Murderer

An expert on TV noted that Cho Seung Hui was a 'mass murderer' not a 'spree killer' because he didn't just 'snap,' he planned this out long in advance.R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

SF rampage

Should the recent vehicular murder spree by Omeed Aziz Popal go in here? --Aussie Evil 21:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed

The current definition of a spree killer is WAY OFF. A spree killer is a serial killer whose murders are not spaced over a significant period of time, and who doesn't target any one particular kind of victim. It's like a "serial killer on crack". The characters from Natural Born Killers, for example, would be "spree killers". Cho Seung-hui, on the other hand, wouldn't qualify as a "spree killer", he would qualify as a "mass murderer". Bueller 007 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Spree killer is defined as "a serial killer whose murders occur within a brief period of time."[1]
2. Serial killer is defined as "someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval."[2]
3. Mass murderer is defined as "a person who is responsible for the deaths of many victims in a single incident."[3]

The definitional information available on Wikipedia on these phrases are mostly incorrect. Seung-hui Cho is, by definition, a serial killer who murdered more than three victims, one at a time, in a relatively short interval across two distinct incidents that are labelled, collectively, as the Virginia Tech massacre. Adraeus 07:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No no no. You need better sources than just some online dictionary of no known reliability on the topic if you want to dispute the definitions. Serial killer is spread out beyond 30 days, so a mass murderer (like Cho) and a spree killer are NOT serial killers at all. This is pretty basic information available in a great many sources. (And some could argue that the fact that Cho stopped to make a video and so forth pushed him over from mere mass killer to spree killer, but I'm not going to get into that.) I am removing the tag as totally unwarranted, as I think it's bogus and the people who created the article obviously think you are wrong, so that's consensus right there. If you want to put a fact tag somewhere, fine, but the full on disputed tag is completely unwarranted. DreamGuy 06:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, while your definitions were wrong, the article itself was messed up too, so I've reverted the lead back to what it used to say. DreamGuy 06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spree killing vs. massacre

I've been reviewing the entries in Category:Massacres in the United States and Category:Spree shootings in the United States. If all the killings were committed in one relatively small area (e.g. a McDonald's or a house), I have categorized the incident as a "massacre". If the killings were in two or more distinct locations, I have categorized those incidents as "spree killings".

However, there are some difficulties. A "school playground" is, in my opinion, a single location and thus a massacre. I think all the killings in the Amish school shooting were in one location so that is also a massacre. However, is the Columbine High School incident a "massacre" or a "spree shooting"? The high school could be considered one location but the shooting happened across several locations within the high school so I would classify that as a "spree shooting".

Similarly, the 101 California Street shootings took place on two floors so I would classify that as a "spree shooting". However, I could see arguments for considering Columbine High School one location and 101 California Street as one location and thus these would be massacres and not "spree shootings".

Another angle on this question is how an incident should be classified if it takes place in multiple cubicles/offices/areas of a company's office or across multiple areas in a factory such as the Standard Gravure shooting.

In effect, what I'm asking is - How far does a killer have to travel in order to be classified as a "spree killer"?

--Richard 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spree killers leave and go somewhere else, not a different spot in the same place. Thus two floors of the same building is the same location. Many of the entries in this article are just wrong and need to be deleted... and the people who put them there either need to educate themselves before making any additional edits or should get blocked or something. An encyclopedia is a place for people to get educated, not to take advice from people who don't know what they are talking about. DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hours

Is that important to specify in how many hours someone killed how many people? It reads like the Guinness Book of Records. Should be maybe award a prize to the winner? Should not be enough to name just some cases without the details? --192.33.238.6 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Surely this is an example of serial killing as it took place over a month or so? Cooling off period and all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.15.109 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) This article is somewhat sloppy in its definition of “spree killing”:

1) The spree killer is only one example of a rampage killer. The other kind is the mass murderer, whose murders take place in a single place. 2) Spree killing does not have to take place over a short period of time. It can take place over a period of weeks (Starkweather and Fugate, e.g.) or even months. The defining element of spree murder is motion: the usually condensed time period is incidental to the nature of spree killing, not a defining element. 3) The murders, therefore, can be experienced as separate events if the time frame is long enough and the lapses of time great enough. Not all spree murderers are like Harold Unruh, who committed his outburst of violence in a 13-minute blur. What sets spree murders apart from serial murders are that the former at least cohere into a single, unifying activity. --Andrew MacEwen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmacewen (talk • contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to 92.18.15.109 and Dmacewen:

Per the notice at the top of the page, this page is for discussing edits/improvements to the Spree killer page, not for topic discussion. momoricks (make my day) 23:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Factually disputed

I just put on a tag on the list because an IP-based anonymous editor is aggressively re-adding entries that are not spree killings, and I bet a bunch of the rest aren't spree killings either. I don't have the time to go look the rest up and delete all the bad ones, especially when somebopdy simply reverts me minutes later on the ones I already deleted.

There's a difference between mass murder and spree killings. Anyone who took the time to read the lead of the article would know that, but unfortunately many of the people editing here apparently can't be bothered to learn about the topic before making edits to it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I went through and checked all of the examples listed, removing ones that were only mass murders. Since the problem is fixed, I removed the tag. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Whole bunch are back I removed a few but I have read enough murder articles for own day. Rich Farmbrough, 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

D.C. snipers

People refuse to classify this as a spree killing given the so-called cooling off period between the attacks. If this cooling off period is what separates it from other spree killings, then what makes the Virginia Tech massacre worthy of keeping it's place on this page. Cho killed a few people, went back to his room to videotape himself, then killed some more people. Wouldn't the whole intermission between the killings warrant a cooling off period? If anything, the D.C. snipers are even more worthy of being called spree killers because they were always on the prowl for more victims. Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate's 1958 killing spree surely had one or two cooling off periods given that it lasted several days. What about the time it took for Jeffery Weise to drive to school after claiming his first two victims? Wouldn't that be a cooling off period. People who keep making unnecessary corrections like these need to quit being so snooty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.165.30 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lane Bryant Shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_Bryant_shooting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About notability

Is there a limit on how many should one kill, to be notable enought to be mentioned on this page? Would killing 5 and himself do? Added signing Akseli18 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Howard Unruh, George Banks, and Ronald Gene Simmons ARE spree killers.

Judging by the definition, spree killers are murderers who's crimes happen at more than one location right? Well, Unruh roamed the streets of Camden searching for victims and occasionally entered peoples homes to murder someone. What the hell is that? Sounds like a spree killer to me. George Banks murdered several girlfriends and children in his home before murdering two neighbors, driving to another house and killing a few more. At the end of the day, Banks had murdered 13 people, five of them family. That is a spree killer. Ronald Gene Simmons murdered 14 relatives and drove to his workplace two days later, murdering two co-workers and wounding several others in a shooting spree. That's 16 people in two separate places over the course of three days. Spree killer. Now that I've explained myself can you leave those entries be?

Fort Hood, by definition was a mass murder because it happened in one location: Fort Hood Military Base.

You can remove the Strathfield massacre for all I care, but why'd you remove the Aramoana massacre from the list?

As for the similar cases section I just thought I'd add it for simplicity's sake to provide people with a list of mass murders and shooting sprees that are widely regarded as spree killings.

Any discussion that starts "Wow, what a dumbass" in an edit comment coming from someone who can't be bothered to read the definition of spree killer in the article itself is totally doomed to failure. The first step you need to take before editing again is to learn the difference between mass murderer, serial killer and spree killer. Until you do that you are just spreading ignorance. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to make stuff up. DreamGuy (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rampage Killer

The British author Colin Wilson prefers the term rampage killer. The word spree has been carelessly used for decades as its classic definition is "Bit of fun, excursion or other breaking loose from routine..." Since it is none of these for either shooter or victim its use is entirely wrong although so entrenched in the language now its progrees is unstoppable. This does not justify the appalling misuse of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.146.22 (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunblane massacre

Is there a reason for the Dunblane massacre's omission? Salopian (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

True definition of a spree killer.

Spree killers are, for lack of a better term, traveling serial killers. There are only a handful of noteworthy examples. Billy Cook, Andrew Cunanan, Paul Knowles and Charles Starkweather are a few that come to mind. Spree shootings that stretch beyond one location are just that, SPREE SHOOTINGS. Not SPREE KILLINGS. I think the true definition of a spree killer is largely misunderstood by the so-called Serial Killer Task Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinton Moad (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Table sorting

Is there a good reason why the table defaults to sorted by number of deaths? I can't help but be reminded of the Encyclopedia Dramatica term "high score" in this context, and that is definitely a Bad Thing. Perhaps it should sort by date instead?--Nucleusboy (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)