Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

When concerts are outlawed, only outlaws will have concerts

When concerts are outlawed, only outlaws will have concerts

The left-blogosphere is joyous because there were accidental shootings at gun shows and events for Gun Appreciation Day.

Really, they’re putting the full snark on, because nothing says “suspend the 2nd Amendment” like accidental shootings:

 Memeorandum gun show accidents

There’s something much more dangerous.

Rock concerts, which have a sordid history of serious injuries and deaths, including (via The Worst Concert Accidents):

Great White

One of the most notable tragedies in recent musical memory came with the fire at the Station nightclub in West Warwick, Rhode Island. 80s metal band Great White had managed to pack the place beyond capacity, and the assembled throng of hair-metal fans were having a grand old time until the band’s manager set off some pyro in the very unsuitable space. The sparks caught some exposed insulation on fire, turning the club into a deathtrap inferno that claimed the lives of 100 people.

Pearl Jam

It’s just a general rule of thumb: more people, more danger. So when Pearl Jam played the Roskilde music festival in 2000 and over 50,000 people turned out to see the grunge band, nothing good could come of it. People toward the back of the venue started to complain that they couldn’t hear, so they started to press forward. Once enough people start pressing, it becomes a wave. And once a wave gets big enough, people start to get crushed. The carnage at Roskilde was epic, with eleven people being suffocated in the mass of humanity. Pearl Jam almost broke up as a result of the incident, but decided to soldier on.


Somebody doesn’t have to die to make this list – a concert accident can be awful even with zero fatalities. Take this AC/DC concert in Brisbane – there wasn’t anything wrong with the band, or the venue, or security. It was just simple dumb human error that got a poor disabled man sent to the hospital with grisly injuries. The man, who was in a motorized wheelchair, was rocking out to the band when his friend accidentally hit the joystick, sending him forward through the security barrier and causing the metal rod the man used to manipulate objects to stab deep into his eye. Yikes.

Don’t even go there with cars:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Shopping BLACK Friday has also come to mean taking your life in your own hands…especially if the latest Air Jordans are in the offing.

TrooperJohnSmith | January 20, 2013 at 8:56 am

When so many people who have never handled a weapon before start showing up at gun shows…

The Left forgot to note they were ‘accidental’. Hell, even the Marine Corps has incidents, and that is the ultimate gun culture.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS OF JAN. 11, 2013: 94 …. [average 8.5/day]

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO IN 2012: 2,670 …. [average 7.31/day]

Drudge had an article about a five year-old kid who was suspended for telling classmates she was going to shoot them and herself with her pink Hello Kitty Bubbles Gun. I was surprised to learn that it happened in the next town over from where I live in Pennsy. The administration claims they did everything according to the law. The parents have hired an attorney from Maryland. This should get interesting. Even our local newspaper, which is liberal of course, thinks the school is wrong. Where, oh, where has common sense gone? The poor child was questioned for three hours!

    dacama in reply to Rosalie. | January 20, 2013 at 9:14 am

    Without her parents there. Sounds like the Soviet Union.

      Rosalie in reply to dacama. | January 20, 2013 at 11:29 am

      I would assume that the law does not stipulate that you treat a child differently, and they do not possess even a little common sense to do so on their own. This is pretty darn scary.

Not knowing the details of what exactly happened at gun shows Id sure remind any participant to recheck every gun for ammo. Further, gun owners and other particpants need to be on alert that there may be folks willing to sabatoge gun shows to make some political point. The same way animal rights groups have done.
Sorry but the accidents somehow seem a little too convenient to me.

Air shows, auto races, motorcycle races, parades, football games, basketball games, hockey games, skiing, ice skating, bungee-jumping, sky-diving…

hell, ANY human activity CAN result in injury or death.

Again, guns are power tools. They CAN hurt you, and need to be respected.

“The left-blogosphere is joyous because there were accidental shootings at gun shows and events for Gun Appreciation Day.”

Isn’t that analogous to making fun of the rampant black on black crime in Chicago? Or DC, or NYC etc., etc…?

Of course, the rules don’t apply to liberals. Or criminals, who happen to be mostly liberal for obvious reasons.

10,000 adults and 200+ kids died in 2011 due to alcohol (per CDC). For the kids – can we please ban alcohol, cars, and public schools? After all – if one got rid of all 3, there’d be no drunks to hit kids in crosswalks, and no public schools that would need to be defended – can’t do a mass-murder on a home-school.

And there’d be no constitutional issues to banning any of them.

Plus, of course, you get all of those wonderful ‘green’ things: no more cars means no more hundreds of millions going to Obama’s bundlers for making cars that incinerate on impact. Or special deals in the billions for union freeway-building projects.

[…] Legal Insurrection recommends banning rock concerts to save just one life […]

“If you missed: many shootings at gun shows yesterday on Gun Appreciation Day”

A cute little magic trick to impress your friends:

Change the word “gun” to “drone” in that tweet, and watch the journ-o-list lose interest faster than you can say, “cut and paste.”

And yesterday, over 2500 human lives were lost to premeditated murder by scalpel and vacuum, which was legalized through a rationalizing dictate, but otherwise illegal by our law. At least illegal without due process — baby steps.

I wonder how many acts of involuntary exploitation, including murder, rape, etc., were prevented by citizen “soldiers”.

    n.n in reply to n.n. | January 20, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Either the Left prefers to treat symptoms (in perpetuity), does not comprehend risk management, or perhaps both.

By right-winger reasoning, suitcase nukes should be legal. Idiots.

Oh look, only ad hominem responses from the wingnuts because they can’t reason themselves out of a paper bag. Still waiting.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mikio. | January 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    Waiting for what, troll?

    You perform a drive-by poo smearing on this thread and expect someone to “reason” with an idiot?


      It’s telling that can’t you counter my assertion with even ONE good reason differentiating why AR-15s should be legal and suitcase nukes shouldn’t.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mikio. | January 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

        You mean THIS assertion you first make HERE, NOW?

        See how stupid you prove yourself???

        Can YOU RATIONALLY differentiate between nukes and a rifle?

          No, the assertion I made when I first posted: “By right-winger reasoning, suitcase nukes should be legal.” THAT is the assertion you’ve yet to counter with the required differentiation between suitcase nukes and, say, AR-15s, not rifles, since we lefties aren’t calling for the banning of rifles. Jeezus. You RWers are nothing without your pathetically obtuse straw man arguments. Nevermind anyway, because that’s already been three non-answers from you and three strikes, so you’re out. Predictably pathetic. This is why you atavistic assholes will never get one of your own in the Oval Office again — not without severe cheating and corruption, anyway, which is all you scumbags are good at. Because America has sufficiently progressed. It still has a long ways to go, but at least you dickweeds are history. O! BA! MA! Say it with me! hahahaha WOOOOO!!!

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 20, 2013 at 3:46 pm

          No. You are a liar, as anyone who can read can see.

          You are too stupid to even know what a straw-man is.

          Next you declare “victory”.

          Then you indulge in profane name-calling and general madness.

          All typical Collectivist troll behavior, and good material for educating undecideds.


        quiksilverz24 in reply to Mikio. | January 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm

        AR-15’s are a means of self protection. A suitcase nuclear bomb is a means of mass destruction.

        Simple enough for your non-reasoning liberal mind?

          Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. That is correct; that is a sound difference. But now if self-protection is THE criterion, then handguns, hunting rifles, and other assorted so-called non-assault weapons are sufficient, are they not? Yes, they are. Thus, AR-15 legalization for private ownership serves no utilitarian purpose for society on balance since it causes more harm than good (harm = more efficient mass shootings of innocent people; good = keeping gun advocates and their fetish happily fed).

          Rock concerts, on the other hand, by surely 95+% popular opinion, should not be banned because of the same Harm vs. Good principle. So, so much for Jacobson’s lunkheaded “point.” Same goes for car ownership, basketball games, parades, and all the other similarly retarded examples brought up in this thread.

          Ragspierre in reply to quiksilverz24. | January 20, 2013 at 4:02 pm

          “…other assorted so-called non-assault weapons are sufficient, are they not?”

          No. And it isn’t any of your tyrannical, totalitarian business.

          quiksilverz24 in reply to quiksilverz24. | January 20, 2013 at 5:28 pm

          Here’s the deal, Mikio, you oxygen thief.

          First, it is not the Bill of Needs, it is the Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not place limits on the rights of individuals; It defines the rights accorded to the People. However, it does place limits on the Government and states what the limited powers of the Government are.

          Sufficiency is not a means of determining what rights are bestowed upon the people. Nor do you have the right to define the utilitarian means of assault rifle ownership. I can say Harm = innocent homeowners shot and killed because their legally owned AR was confiscated vs Good = Liberals feeling better because they did something. Kind of a fun game to play, huh Mikio?

          And besides, what is an assault rifle? From what I have learned from the liberal media, there are only cosmetic differences between an assault rifle and a non-assault rifle. If my gun looks bad-ass, it’s illegal. But if it looks like Grandma can handle it, it’s ok. Again, liberal logic…

          Milhouse in reply to quiksilverz24. | January 21, 2013 at 5:43 pm

          AR-15s are hunting rifles, you idiot. And no, “handguns, hunting rifles, and other assorted so-called non-assault weapons” are often not sufficient for self-protection, or at least not as good. Why do you want to restrict the means of self-protection, and prevent people from using the best means available? How exactly do you imagine “AR-15 legalization for private ownership” causes the harm of “more efficient mass shootings of innocent people”? What is special about them that causes that, but does not, in your mind, by the exact same mechanism cause the benefit of more people protected from crime, or for that matter the benefit of more people enjoying tasty game, or more people enjoying the pleasure of shooting the hell out of a target, which is surely at least as great as whatever pleasure people derive from a rock concert?

        LukeHandCool in reply to Mikio. | January 20, 2013 at 3:17 pm

        Maybe if you guys dress up like Toni Basil and cheer him on, Mikio will get his little answer up.


” … you dickweeds are history. O! BA! MA! Say it with me! hahahaha WOOOOO!!!”

Okay, Mickey. Have a cigarette. You can now close the 14 windows of Asian porn you opened before stumbling upon Regal Erection. Close ’em before Mom gets home.

[…] JACOBSON: When Concerts Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Concerts. And isn’t banning gun shows because you don’t like the “gun culture” kinda […]

What about The Who? Eleven dead, 26 injured at a 1979 concert in Cincinnati.

“at least you dickweeds are history”

Eliminationist rhetoric. This is why AR’s are necessary — people like you threatening democide.

That should be okay since there has never been an intentional violent injury at an Outlaws concert.

The gun control advocates have repeatedly told us that if their loegislation saves even a single life it is justified. So does the same standard apply to lives lost at rock concerts, and therefore we must ban them because banning them could save at least one life.