Shooting in Carlow

were any previous issues mentioned in the reports?

the judicial system has a lot of answering to be doing! although i know it cant catch everything, but surely!

Obviously released on strict conditions didn't work.

His death saves the country the cost of court case/incarceration or more likely, depending on judge and garda work, he could have been released with 'strict conditions'. Again

RIP those involved?? The only person who died was the perp. My sympathies certainly don't lie with him

Could you read the screenshot I've provided from the IT, and stop saying that the gun was licensed to him, he was never going to get a licence for a gun while facing illegal firearm's importation charge's.

I'm thinking how do I convey this as respectfully as possible, but I understand that I may fail completely in doing so.

With that said, we 'society' i.e. including you and me, have absolutely not decided that the best thing to do is to to largely ignore those of us with mental health issues, not provide adequate supports and so on. We, again, including you and me, have little control over how Government chooses to provide funding for the resources which we know are necessary, they know are necessary, and so on. The Government have been made aware of this on numerous occasions, one that sticks out in recent memory is the appraisal of CAHMS by the Inspector of Mental Health Services in which she wrote -

It is important to recognise that experience of good services with positive outcomes may get lost in the sometimes-heated discussions about CAMHS. However, based on my review, I cannot currently provide an assurance to all parents or guardians in all parts of Ireland that their children have access to a safe, effective, and evidence based mental health service.

Without knowing the personal circumstances of any of the posters on here, I just don't know how you can suggest that they not worry, that the problem will eventually come knocking on their door. In my circumstances, it already has, well, it was more of a phone call from their therapist inviting me to discuss my relatives circumstances with them. I declined the offer by simply saying 'No thank you', to which the therapist responded 'Do you not want to discuss 'X' "unaliving"* themselves?' Again I politely declined and hung up the call. I simply wasn't interested in discussing anything with people who I know their values and social outlook shall we say, are very different to my own, and the individual in question. I did not share the therapists concerns. There's no suggestion or indication of the individual in question picking up any weapons, you must surely be aware of the fact that persons experiencing ill mental health or who have any particular mental health condition are more of a danger to themselves than they are to anyone else.

It's for these reasons that on a number of grounds I reject your assertion to associate the circumstances of this particular case with the broader issue of a broken and chronically underfunded mental healthcare system which is failing to meet the needs of its users, and those who need to avail of extra support services in the general population. Effectively all you're doing, and not for a minute do I think it's intentional, but you're allowing for the possibility that the individual in question in this particular case is not, or rather was not, responsible for their actions, that in your view society bears responsibility for the actions which he chose to take. That idea just doesn't get out of the starting blocks tbh, nor should it. Nobody but the individual in question is responsible for their actions. It would be completely wrong to associate their actions with any other members of, or any other group in society on the basis of characteristics which you have identified they share in common, as that only perpetuates discrimination and prejudice, without actually addressing any of the broader issues which are a completely separate concern.

*a euphemism which I really don't care for, but out of respect for your earlier efforts to filter out the word I'm aware you're referring to, I'll use it as a substitute.

after discussions with mods, it was deemed inappropriate to use official dsm disorder terms such as *** during such discussions, but it seems that wordings such as scrote, scumbag, evil etc are, but since these terms are not used in such bodies of work, as they are deemed unethical to do so, im left with no other option to self censor, i apologies if this offends

I would be very interested in how exactly that mod discussion went. Was the issue with use of the words themselves, or were you asked not to speculate about/online diagnose other people???

I literally cannot see any reason for the mods to take exception to you using medically accepted terms in general discussion or when referring to your own diagnoses, so I suspect you were asked not to do the latter and are now taking it to extremes in order to make some kind of point.

Will security measures be strengthend for upcoming big concerts/events/matches etc on the back of this ?

You can never not be careful

Do we know that the firearm was licenced to him? I'd be very surprised that the Gardai let him hold onto a firearm if he was licenced on one, especially with the charges he faced.

Did he actually try to shoot anyone? Or was more like he was hyping himself up to do it to himself?

Sounds like he developed some fantasy and stuff with the guns and then it was getting mixed up with reality by getting caught etc and it all just escalated.

Thankfully he didn't hurt anyone else.

For such a serious offense as procuring illegal lethal weapons he shouldn't have been granted bail, which the Gardai objected to.

People get bail for charges much worse than this guy was facing. There's people on bail where they are facing murder charges. For example, the barrister who shot the guy in Tallaght was on bail before and during his trial and there are lots of other examples.

I'm on the fence regarding bail to be honest. If he was refused bail, I wouldn't have complained and the fact that he was granted bail doesn't really annoy me either. Easy to say after the fact that he shouldn't have been granted bail, sure isn't hindsight 20/20 but neither of the other two guys arrested with him and facing similar charges did something like this.

Agreed. You are missing the point though. Both killed people and were released on bail. That's my point.

The guy in Carlow had killed nobody so that's why I am neither here nor there on the bail issue.

Ye it's possible. He could have got a little mixed up in his mind but ultimately he didnt physically hurt anyone except himself. He did put people in danger but there is a chance that he intentionally decided not to hurt anyone else. Im just thinking of it along the lines of when you hear about murder/suicides and, like you think "why didnt they just kill themselves and leave the other person/people alone". Maybe he did that.

I just think people are being a bit cruel about him. Im sure he had family who are grieving and he did take his own life so he was hurting.