He could look at the very long standing collected statistics of the violent incidents he's interested in, and simply look up whether the person or people involved previously flagged by experts in the mental health industry.

But it sounds like he wants to ignore the enormous tomes of existing data. Isn't that a sure-fire way of wasting money and polluting the pond by ignoring the past and then defining variations of select criteria that already exists?

This seems like it may return the previous amount of stigma, and maybe increase the stigma, to seeking mental health treatment.

If this is just administrative, the potential for abuse is also significant.

Previous science, as the article states, hasn't shown a huge link between mental illness and mass shooting. This could also be viewed as a giant waste of taxpayer dollars.