A gruesome tragedy occurred in Maine—a massacre that was sadly predictable. In fact, numerous individuals and institutions, including the Army, the police, and the killer’s own family, were well aware of his dangerous mental illness and the potential for violence. The Army recognized the reservist’s instability and prohibited him from possessing weapons or engaging in live fire activity. However, they failed to take further action, deflecting responsibility by stating that the killer did not have access to military-issued weapons during the crime.
The police also had foreknowledge of the killer’s intentions through a fellow military colleague who reported his readiness to commit a mass shooting. Taking this specific threat seriously, the police visited the killer’s home and spoke with his family, who, despite their concerns, were ill-equipped to handle the situation. The family recognized the severity of the threat and attempted to involve the reservist’s military superiors, but their efforts ultimately fell short. They even changed the combination to the gun safe in his home but failed to remove the guns or the killer’s backup key. The killer’s divorce decree mandated secure storage of firearms in his residence.
Even a local gun shop noticed red flags when the killer attempted to purchase a suppressor and misleadingly responded affirmatively to a question regarding mental health on the background check. Although this response did not reflect involuntary commitment or legal incompetence, it indicated the killer’s awareness of his mental instability. In accordance with the law, the gun shop declined the sale. However, they were limited in their ability to take further action.
With the military, the police, the gun shop, friends, family, and mental health facility all aware of the threat the killer posed, it is disheartening that no one took the necessary steps to prevent the tragedy that unfolded. This story reflects a distressing pattern that we have witnessed before. Previous mass shooters have also exhibited warning signs and encountered ineffective intervention. For instance, the Jacksonville shooter had been involuntarily held in a psychiatric facility, yet no action was taken to prevent the expected violence. Similarly, the Parkland shooter had been flagged for mental health concerns, but medical professionals deemed him a low risk. The Uvalde shooter made violent threats and collected news stories about mass shootings, while the Roseburg killer fantasized about violence and explicitly warned others not to go to school.
These stories raise serious questions about the capabilities and dedication of our law enforcement and mental health authorities. For instance, the Club Q killer in Colorado had engaged in an armed standoff with SWAT units and openly expressed his intention to become the next mass killer. Shockingly, the charges were dismissed after a brief hearing, allowing the killer to carry out his massacre at a gay bar in Colorado Springs, claiming five lives, just minutes later.
This contrast illuminates the bizarre nature of firearm regulations. Law-abiding citizens must navigate complex processes and endure thorough background checks to make minor modifications to their firearms. In contrast, individuals involved in violent incidents or making explicit threats are often able to escape consequences and proceed with their deadly plans. The focus on retail regulation of sporting goods stores, as advocated by those in the gun control movement, fails to address the real issues at play. Gun shop clerks, in this case, acted responsibly by refusing sales to prohibited individuals. However, the police shirked their duty by depending on the killer’s brother to handle the situation, without taking more decisive action.
These tragic episodes do not occur out of the blue. School shooters, in particular, often exhibit a desire to share their plans. A study conducted by the Department of Education and the Secret Service revealed that they frequently communicate their intentions beforehand.
