There are a handful of ways people lose their right to own a firearm. One of those is to be involuntarily committed.

Based on what we know of the killer in the Borderline shooting, he was a very disturbed man. Suffering from PTSD, there had been incidents before, but now people are taking a step back and asking whether or not he should have been able to have a gun prior to the tragic shooting in the first place.

Should he have been committed after a standoff with police?

The gunman who killed 12 people at a country music bar in California fired a bullet through the wall of his mother’s home during a volatile row in April and spent hours holed up inside until police coaxed him out but he was cleared by mental health officials and was somehow still allowed to own the Glock .45 used in Wednesday’s attack.

In April, police were called to [the killer]’s home in Newbury Park after neighbors heard loud crashes coming from inside the house he shared with his mother Colleen.

She lived ‘in fear’ of him, the neighbors said, adding that [he], who friends have described as ‘cocky’, was ‘hell to live with.’

The neighbors already suspected that he was suffering from PTSD after returning from a tour of Afghanistan between 2010 and 2011 and say he was disrespectful and rude whenever he passed them in the street.

When police arrived at the home, they called in mental health specialists to help resolve the situation and, according to The Wall Street Journal, it took hours for them to get [him] out of the house.

Inside, furniture had been tossed all over the house and there were holes in the wall including the one caused by a bullet, they said.

They had heard gunshots, they said, coming from inside the home and there was a bullet hole in the wall.

Despite the combination of red flags, the mental health specialists who responded decided that [the killer] was not suitable to be involuntarily committed under Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code.

Now, I’m not a mental health professional, but if someone is shooting inside his home while the police are outside of it, just how is he not suitable for commitment?

Honestly, it baffles me.

Of course, I’m looking at this through the clarity of hindsight. I know what dark turn he was going to take at some point between April and early November. I know where he met his end and how many people he slaughtered before that.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand PTSD well enough to know that legions suffer with it to various degrees and never do anything like this. I’m not entirely convinced that PTSD is to blame for this. I think the guy had some other stuff wrong with him.

But the point remains that regardless of what screw was loose in his head, he was involved with a standoff with police.

How in the world wasn’t he committed?

How in the world was he not on the prohibited list?

Kind of makes you think, huh? I mean, yet again we find a mass shooting that looks like it could have been prevented with existing federal laws but the killer slipped through the cracks. Kind of like Sutherland Springs last year.

Meanwhile, all the gun control on California’s books did nothing to stop it.

At every level, gun control failed, but they’re still claiming just a few more laws will make it all go away.

Pathetic.