Unfortunately, from a policy perspective, the relevant question isn't "how many mass shooters displayed red flags" but "what percentage of the people who display red flags become mass shooters". I suspect the answer to the latter is "very, very low".
This is a very common mistake when talking about policy--you note that a lot of people who do X or Y have some characteristic, and then say "We should address that characteristic with our policy!"
To offer an extreme example, say we discover that 98% of bank robbers have driver's licenses. Who cares? We will not get very far looking for bank robbers, or potential bank robbers, by scrutinizing licensed drivers
Of course, "red flags" are less extreme, but lots of people nurture violent fantasies, a bitter hatred of the opposite sex or some other group they imagine wronged them, without doing so much as spitting on the sidewalk in their direction.
I'm not saying that's great and fine, but if most of them don't do anything, what's your policy response?
BTW, this is also why the Finkelstein et al study of medical bankruptcy is superior to Elizabeth Warren's work on the subject. It's much more useful to know how much a medical event raises your probability of declaring bankruptcy than what % of bankrupts had some medical bills.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.