Do you prefer spree killers or celebrity killers?

In My Humble Opinion
1

It seems a lot of crazy people kill in order to become famous on infamous. Some are mass killers like the Columbine kids or the Norwegian guy. Some kill celebrities like, say, John Lennon, or presidents.

Of course I understand that this may not be the motive for all notorious killers. But if you were advising a aspiring killer, would you recommend quantity, or quality? Would it be worth a few celebrities to spare the lives of dozens of nobodies every year? Or would you rather our precious celebrity bodily fluids be preserved even at the cost of untold numbers of people you’ve never heard of and you’ll only hear of if they become spree killer victims?

I’m gonna set an arbitrary exchange rate of one celeb to 20 nobodies. If you think that is unreasonable, fell free to select your own rate and explain why.

My own feelings – well, I’m biased. As a participant in each year’s Celebrity Death Pool, I have a vested interest in maximizing annual celebrity death. For this reason I must recuse myself.

2

20 celebs to one nobody

3

Spree killers seem more common now. I’m drawing a blank to think of even one really infamous celebrity murder that happened fairly recently.

4

“Spree killing” sounds like such fun–kind of madcap and carefree. Like you should be giddily shouting “wheee!” with each victim.

5

All you need to be a spree killer is a group of people gathered together to act as targets. You have to work to get close to a celebrity if you want to ace them.

Therefore, I choose serial killers … the real artists.

6

It’s a kick in the mouth!