The questions posed by Cass are the ones I would be asking first. The answers to these no doubt will lead to other questions down the line.

An accident/tragedy has occurred and a woman is dead, name calling, calling the kettle black, etc or anything else is not going to change what happened.

If everyone had done their jobs properly in the first instant this accident would/should not have happened.

If a basic ten minute safety brief was given to actors covering how to check a firearm, make it safe, know the difference between a live/blank round, etc took place, well, maybe it would not have happened.

Forty years ago when I got my first firearm, lesson number one was to the boss indoors and no it wasn’t how to shoot it, that came later. Lesson number one was how to safety and properly check that’s its unloaded and if for some reason it was loaded then how to safely unload and make it safe.

Common sense dictated that whatever item you own or use that you know how to safety use it.

Alas, not a lot of common sense around these days, it’s long gone like the dinosaur and the dodo.

This is the sensible and adult way to look at it.

100% to all of this.

It was an accident. Somebody is responsible. And it's not the actors who were handed a loaded gun under the guise of being same.

The armorer was utterly incompetent. And apparently said they were out of their depth. (not sure if before or after the accidient. Or really that should be accidents.

Got this file sent to me, on how you apply for a concealed carry permit in NI with the PSNI. Interesting on how different things are 60 miles up the road from Dublin in relation to firearms and from Brussels.

It'll be nice to see what exactly the U.N. does release

It will all end in tears for the Saudi lads... Letting their women drive, and now to go shooting!!! They'll be wanting a say in running the place soon as well. Slippery slope...In the meantime Saudi women can shoot firearms we in Ireland and the UK are denied going by these pics...Funny old world .

You let a pig-faced little twerp like this run around the streets with a semi-automatic rifle, people are going to get killed.

Only in America.

The rest of the world, for the most part, thinks differently.

Let's keep it that way.

I wouldn't at all "ignore the real cause of these problems" although I suspect you and I would differ greatly in our identification of that cause, or those causes. I just don't think that allowing spotty 17 year olds with assault rifles to roam free in such situations is any part of the answer.

I doubt too many REAL Munster lads do either. Imagine if the Jews had guns in Limerick in 1904? What would Stevie Coughlan have thought of that?

What in the Kentucky fried F**K is the point you are trying to make here???

What the Hell has a program in Limerick over 117 years ago have to do with a young man defending himself against ARMED ANTIFA scumbags got to do with this over in the USA? Are you trying to say Rittenhouse is a racist for shooting white trailer trash wife beaters and kiddy fiddlers?

Are you saying religious and ethnic minorities should be armed? Agree 100% with that. Would have prevented a bigger problem in 1937 Germany...Oh wait...the Jews, Commies, anarchists,gays and all the others were armed under Weimar weapons laws,as they prudently did to prevent attacks on their persons and property from both communist and Right-wing thugs.Except the Nazis used the registration of firearms lists to utterly disarm them in 1935.

So please elaborate on this jump of logic in comparisons, as it has lost me and many others here no doubt?

BTW Ritenhouse had a semi-automatic sporting rifle not an "assault rifle"...BIG difference.

Ah yes of course, because allegations of institutional racism is justification for someone to go rob a new telly. Give me a f*cking break. The only institutional racism is called affirmative action and it discriminated against whites and Asians in favour of Hispanics and blacks. The notion of police officers being engaged in some grand conspiracy to suppress minorities and shoot innocents is a ludicrous myth, one propagated by the media.

So you don’t want spotty 17 year olds defending property, but greasy 22 and 26 year olds can go and riots and assault people? Don’t even get me started on the pedophile that got what he deserved.

I don’t care about some irrelevant event that happened 117 years ago. An economic boycott isn’t a justification to use lethal force against someone, and how many people actually died in the the Limerick “Pogrom”?

I don’t know what you’re trying to insinuate when you imply that I’m somehow not a “real” Munster lad. I’m Waterford born and bred and I still live in Munster, but I didn’t know you were a governing body on the standards of being a Munster lad. Please divulge your hidden secrets and teach me the way to be a true Munster lad.

A fairly logical assessment. He inserted himself somewhere he didn’t need to be. It’s like poking a bear, stupid thing to do and always ends badly for the bear or the poker. I absolutely wouldn’t advocate anyone trying to insert themselves into danger. I bet he’s stressed being on trial, even if he’s acquitted not a nice place to be. If you go looking for trouble it has a tendency to find you. The three shot are no angels but possibly would be alive today if he stayed home.

@Grizzly 45 Come on we all like to pretend that semi auto ARs are not assault rifles and while yes they do not fit the definition, realistically they can be used extremely effectively in that application. A lot of soldiers prefer rapid use of semi auto over auto fire. EDIT - I cannot back this up, it's based upon personal opinion on the FN and a comment by Andy McNab in one of his books.

BULLSHIT ... It's wrong because it does not fit the correct definition of an assault rifle as select-fire capability is missing, which is the key definition of an assault rifle and has been such since the original sturm geweher in 1944.

If that theory was correct why doesn't any modern-day army worth its salt field a semi-auto rifle only?? . The only army that had a semi-auto rifle in recent times [late 20th century] was the British army up to and slightly beyond the Falklands war, and that was because of their Fuddish outlook holdovers by their top brass that full-auto fire only wastes ammo. As for quoting Mr Mc Nab as a firearms source...If his knowledge is anything like his navigation and performance as a squad leader in Bravo Two Zero...He's best left to writing SAS porn books.As for "preferences".You use what you are ordered to use or what the situation dictates and when you might be resupplied. Nor would a civilian semi-auto even stand up to the fire rate of a select-fire assault rifle.So saying they are equal is utterly disingenuous.

Why were some sort of quasi militia allowed in this situation? They probably never heard of Bloody Sunday over there. We know what happens when soldiers play at policing.

Because the police were doing JACK at the time in these "fiery but mostly peaceful" Kennosha riots, as they were being blamed for instigating these ? And maybe people didn't want to lose their business and livelihoods?So maybe like the Koreans in the LA riots, people decided to help each other out to protect their property from the BLM/ANTIFA rabble?

Compared to a highly trained and supposedly disciplined elite military corps who went on a shooting spree on unarmed civilians in Derry in 1972? How do you make this as a comparison? Are you saying it's not a good idea to use professional killers in a policing role? You'd be 100%correct in that with Bloody Sunday. The Paras were the worst choice for that job at the time.