rderer manages to evade police at the time of the event, there is often an abundance of physical evidence and even eyewitnesses, and the suspect is usually caught quickly.
This is not to say that mass murder is not a significant problem, but it does point out the fact that such events are highly random, unpredictable, and largely unpreventable. By the time the public becomes aware of the incident, the threat has frequently been neutralized. Although sensational, Fox and Levin propose that mass murder does not have the lurid appeal of sexuality and sadism that accompany most serial murders. "As further evidence that sensationalism is critical, serial murderers who do not engage in sexual sadism (e.g., those who slay in hospitals and nursing homes, or commit serial killing for profit) also remain relatively obscure."
According to Holmes and Holmes, "the complexities of mass murder cannot be explained in a simple definition. However, briefly stated, mass murder is the killing of a number of persons at one time and in one place." Gresswell and Hollin expand on this a bit: "Mass murder is defined primarily by the length of time over which the murders take place. 'Classic' mass murder involves the taking of several lives in the same general area in a short period of time by a lone assassin." At issue is the actual "number" of persons that would qualify a homicide scene as a "mass" murder. Some authorities recognize four as the minimum, while others set the number at three, and still another uses three in a qualified sense: ". . . if we define mass murder as the wilful injuring of five or more persons of whom three or more are killed by a single offender in a single incident."
This seeming concern for numbers may obscure the point that a mass murder has nevertheless occurred, when, for example, only two are killed but 30 are saved by the efforts of doctors, nurses, and paramedics. Accordingly, Holmes and Holm...