Why Do We Always Get a Spate of False Conspiracy 'Theories' After a US Mass Shooting?

Mass shootings, in the US, are quickly followed by outbreaks of false conspiracy 'theories' about the gunman (it's usually a gunman), his motives and the shooting event itself. It's pedantic of me, but these 'theories' don't deserve this label. A hypothesis (a scientifically-testable explanation) is only given theory status, when the accumulated evidence convinces the major of experts, it's likely to be the best available. Conspiracy 'theories', seem to me, to be largely self-serving fabrications. The US Disinfo Defense League suggests that false conspiracy 'theories' flourish in the aftermath to shootings because they a) avoid real conversation about the issue of gun violence and b) give someone (a 'patsy') to blame (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/25/texas-school-shooting-false-conspiracy-theories-social-media). Following the Texas primary school shooting, there were claims the shooter was an illegal immigrant, on the run from border guards (he was born and bred in the US). Hijacked images from other people's websites were also used to falsely claim the shooter was transgender. The conspiracy 'theories' advocates appear to be simply chasing 'likes' and followers. One sometimes has to wonder if social media actually benefits the human condition. People directly affected by the shootings must be further distressed by the false conspiracy 'theories'. Speaking of which, I was astounded (I'm easily astounded) when viewing a clip from a prominent Texan politician on the BBC news. He claimed that the primary school massacre, in his state, reflected a mental health problem and had nothing to do with gun law. Mental health problems can result in people doing awful things. Most countries, however, don't arm such people with weapons of mass destruction (to recoin a phrase).