No, you refuse to admit that had the law, as currently written was applied, this may not have occurred. They had just cause to ensure he had NO access to firearms. That's pretty simply their error. Because a few, if any, of those who made the decision not to pursue it may have been victims (even if true), is no excuse for inaction when appropriate. The law is there ... they failed to follow it.
I already did. How many times do I need to go over the same ground. Enough already, if you don't agree, you don't agree. However, a commission that did the investigation came to that co9nclusion, and neither you or I have more facts than either of us do.
I think your point-of-view is clear from the article, assuming that involuntary institutionalization under the Baker Act does subsequently disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm.
It would be nice to see some publication from the opposing side of the gun-control scene that serves as a rebuttal. Obviously committing someone to a mental institution against their will is a big deal, and it's possible that invoking the Baker Act was inappropriate here for reasons that I can't be bothered searching for - the devil in often in the details.
This article is holding the victims responsible for the actions of the attacker as you seem to be.