Part 4/6:
A critical point raised was the tendency to question 'why' such an attack occurred—why an individual was able to breach security—versus 'how' it was possible for someone, especially an untrained, young individual, to get so close to a former president during a campaign stop with a high-powered rifle from a distance of 130 yards.
The argument suggests that understanding how the breach occurred is more actionable than dwelling on why it happened. By investigating the security failures—such as lapses in perimeter control, threat detection, or personnel oversight—security agencies can better reverse engineer the breach, identify vulnerabilities, and implement more effective safeguards.