I don't think they can really be compared due to the circumstances being so different. You'd have to be a literal master mind to be able to be a successful serial killer with more than 1 or 2 kills.
Ted Bundy, while a master mind in social manipulation, was not a master mind in anything else, and only got away with the amount he did due to technology being much inferior back then. Today it's a lot harder than being good at social manipulating.
Jack the Ripper got away with what he did because the technology we have today to find criminals didn't even exist back then, and they had to use what ever they could find using what little resources they had.
Today you'd need an understanding of how the police work, you'd need to know how to avoid the police and leaving clues, which means leaving NO traces, whether it be your DNA at the scene, the victims DNA, or someone, or a camera, spotting you in the area some of the murders took place. And then you need to know where to hide the body where it won't be found, and you need to do it without being seen.
There's a lot more to it than what I described, but basically it's nearly impossible to be a serial killer with more than 1 or 2 kills like I said earlier, but anyone can pull out a gun in public and shoot people like you said.
The circumstances are just too different to fairly contrast them.
For every new way to murder, a new way to prevent it pops up. If it takes one well placed bomb, then all it takes is one live camera and security to be watching. If you're living in a space colony, security is bound to be tight. Not to mention you'd have to smuggle the bomb, or the materials for one into the colony first. And as we progress, and the potential for hacking progresses, so does the prevention of it. It's a sort of balance. If one side slows down, the other wins, therefor they can't afford to slow down and keep coming up with more and more advanced techniques to counter act what the other is doing.