how do you think the right to carry is a response to all the warning signs you said people didnt react to ?
Actually, I don't think you asked that specific question.
Anyhow, in answer to it, all I can offer is this: The only thing we can read from the 'warning signs' is that homicidal maniacs walk among us, day in and day out. We can't stop them without due cause, and they seem smart enough to not give us that. The killer may have sent 'signals', but they were not clear signs.
When we do see actual warning signs along the highway, we take appropriate action: We slow down for curves and trucks use low gear for steep grades, we look for flagmen when the signs say that they are present, we do not pass if the sign says 'do not pass'. We read and obey the signs, cognizant that failure to so puts us in peril.
If I read the message of the 'warning signs' the killer left us correctly, then the only appropriate actions I can see are either: a) isolate those who exhibit these symptoms with no regard for due process or individual rights, or b) arm ourselves against their possible future aggression. I vote for b), as I said in my earlier post.
I can't asnwer your question any better. If that is insufficient, so be it.