You specifically said that 99% of them were ugly looking, your words were "ugly looking social rejects" which seemingly implies the basis of their social dejection was primarily their looks. My argument is an average, decent-looking or even good-looking guy can face social dejection, in many cases more than many below-average and ugly men. It would be one thing if you wrote "the vast majority" but you wrote "99%" which is another way of saying: "almost everyone, and the exceptions are such a negligible minority it's as if the same thing is conveyed as if I had written everyone."
Without a doubt, looks are the main reason for social dejection in men. (women have it so easy that even average and below average women can get a man any time they want anywhere, women will just be single, act otherwise and complain because of their own self-imposed pickiness/standards) Looks are the most important thing in a sense, although I'd argue a man that's not good-looking with a lot of money is better off than a good-looking guy with no money. So the primary importance of looks in social acceptance (normies love to say men being socially skilled/charismatic is the most important thing, but this is just self-defeating because obviously men
born attractive will be socialized optimally in their years of development compared to ugly men, so this entire talking-point is bullshit — if an awkward ugly man suddenly became hot one day he'd learn "social skills" quickly due to the sudden acceptance, and because people aren't complicated) is not disputed, nor am I disputing the correlation between mass shooters and them often being unattractive, such as Seung-hui Cho. But consider a case like
George Sodini, who was average in looks. I think the main impetus for his shooting was mental illness and not social dejection, which undoubtedly was nevertheless a factor.
My point is that saying that almost all mass shooters are ugly men socially dejected for this reason with a negligible minority of exceptions is reductive and misleading. It's at once correct to emphasize the profound importance of looks (facial attractiveness + height; the genetic lottery) but one must do so without falling into the mistake of being reductive concerning this so as not to be nuanced regarding the importance of social dejection occurring for factors not purely relating to looks.
The last guy was Omar Mateen. He did the mass shooting in the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida in 2016, killing 49. It was at the time the deadliest mass-shooting in U.S. history, now it is the second as it was surpassed by the Las Vegas shooting in 2017. I'll forthrightly admit Omar Mateen was a repressed homosexual and this was clearly the motive for the shooting. (it was a gay nightclub.) It wasn't a typical case of someone socially dejected, not for their looks or any other reason. He couldn't accept his own homosexuality and became suicidal but not before taking it out on random people. This is despite engaging in homosexual relationships before doing the shooting.
