It's not rocket science, but claims must still be substantiated by science. And that means using scientific methodologies. Your article brings up interesting points, but ultimately fails cite anything more than conjecture. That is expected of a non-academic piece of writing, but it holds little persuasive power. Obviously there must be hard data pointing towards your claim, but until you and I both know it, claims of any sort are rather pointless. Surely you see the logic here?

Edit: violent crime is predominantly men because males exhibit more violent tendencies at the extreme percentiles than women. That is to say, if one witnesses a violent crime, it's more than likely perpetrated by a man. So if extreme violence tends to be committed by a male, then all the more so for mass shootings. What even is the argument here?