This could easily be turned on the owner. "The house was so meticulously planned. How could that be the work of an insane person?"
The thing I see in this article is two people whose actions are rational given a belief in a collapse. It's the belief in the collapse that's insane.
Of course the owner doesn't see the attacker as insane. They share the same premise.
The attacker talked of building a bunker and the CIA tracking him.
"[The owner] instead speculated about political forces that might have it in for him and his family. He talked about hired assassins and past C.I.A. experiments with brainwashing, and suggested that a violent attack on the home of a Second Amendment champion like himself had all the signs of an operation to justify more gun control."
This is so blatant, it simply must be the point of the article.