By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On August 8, 2025, a shooting near the CDC claimed the life of a police officer and the shooter, Patrick White, after he had told his father, Ken White, he was “gonna shoot up the CDC.” Ken White quickly recognized his car at the scene and realized his son was the gunman. An investigation revealed Patrick had stolen guns from his father’s safe, and that the suspect had a history of mental illness, including being admitted to a mental health facility and expressing strong opposition to the COVID-19 vaccine. The family shared that Patrick received medication but no therapy and that they are now being represented by an attorney specializing in cases involving inadequate mental health resources.
Read the original article here
The chilling phrase “I’m gonna shoot up the CDC” now hangs over a family shattered by unimaginable tragedy, as Patrick Joseph White’s father, Ken, faces the agonizing reality of his son’s actions. The narrative that emerges is one of complex familial dynamics, escalating mental health struggles, and the devastating consequences of easy access to firearms. The details, heartbreaking in their simplicity, paint a vivid picture of a family grappling with a crisis that spiraled out of control.
It seems the father’s firearms were somehow accessed and used by his son. The story is filled with accounts of red flags and repeated warnings, beginning with numerous calls to 911 from the family’s home. These calls weren’t isolated incidents; they reflected a pattern of escalating distress. One particularly alarming incident involved Patrick taking a gun from the safe, prompting serious concerns about self-harm. While he was briefly hospitalized, he was released, only to return home. This raises critical questions about the adequacy of mental health interventions and the family’s ability to address the underlying issues.
When questioned about why he didn’t remove the guns, the father struggled for words, caught between acknowledging his son’s precarious state and his own enjoyment of shooting. This hesitation speaks volumes about the conflict at the heart of the tragedy: the clash between personal interests, deeply held beliefs, and the safety of a family member. The father’s comments highlight a disconnect between understanding the potential danger and acting decisively to prevent it. This inaction ultimately had irreversible ramifications.
The narrative, however, goes beyond the immediate tragedy, touching on the broader social and political context that fueled the situation. It seems that a conspiracy theory, specifically the claim that vaccines were a bio-weapon, played a significant role in radicalizing the shooter. This dangerous ideology, amplified by various figures, seemingly fed into the shooter’s mindset and provided a twisted justification for his actions. This underscores the critical importance of responsible discourse and the dangers of misinformation, which can have deadly consequences.
The situation also brings to light the critical importance of secure gun storage. The father’s statement that the safe was “locked”, but somehow breached, casts a shadow over the effectiveness of the security measures in place. The details about the safe’s construction are particularly relevant. If it was a flimsy, easily compromised safe, the father’s confidence in its security would be misplaced. Alternatively, perhaps the safe was robust, but the key or combination were somehow obtained by the shooter. The crucial lesson here is that gun owners bear a profound responsibility to ensure their firearms are inaccessible to anyone, especially those with mental health challenges or a propensity towards violence.
The story reveals a pervasive complacency about gun safety. One anecdote illustrates the recklessness of leaving a loaded handgun where a child could access it. Another example details a homeowner leaving an unloaded rifle in an unsafe position. These incidents are not isolated. They highlight the fact that many gun owners fail to take basic precautions. The lack of care can result in tragic consequences.
The tragedy also raises questions about societal responsibility. Is the shooter’s father, or anyone else, criminally negligent? While there may not be a law in effect to address the situation, it doesn’t make the responsibility of securely storing firearms any less important. The question is if stricter regulations on gun storage, including holding gun owners liable when unsecured weapons are used in crimes, would make a difference.
Finally, the story emphasizes the critical link between mental health, access to firearms, and potential violence. This tragic story offers us insight into the complexity of the issue. When mental illness is present, and firearms are readily available, the risk of tragedy escalates. The father’s lack of action underscores the importance of recognizing the potential danger and acting decisively to protect vulnerable individuals and the broader community.