Randy Blythe 'Disgusted' With Fans

Blythe asked for one minute of silence at a Lamb Of God show to respect Friday's massacry victims, but he's outraged at some in the audience who were "cursing and laughing" instead.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
123

Randy Blythe was furious when fans at a Lamb Of God show didn't take part in a minute of silence for the Connecticut victims.

The band were performing at Medford, Oregon when Blythe asked the audience to take part in a short silence to honor the 26 women and children who died in a massacre in Newtown, Connecticut that day.

While many in the crowd respectfully took part in the silence, others ignored Blythe's request. Later, Blythe shared his disappointment on Instagram (via Antiquiet):

"I have never been more disgusted with an audience in my life. I wish we hadn't played," Blythe said. "Most of the crowd complied, but several didn't, some cursing & even laughing. I wanted to walk off stage.

"I am so disgusted right now - if you were one of those who wouldn't shut up for SIXTY LOUSY SECONDS to honor twenty MURDERED CHILDREN - go look in the mirror. You are looking at a piece of sh-t.

"To the fans who were respectful, I thank you. I am also sorry you have so many goddamned aholes in your community. You should do something about that. This sh-t would not have happened at a lamb of god show where I live, & that is a FACT.

"I am just disgusted. Thoroughly DISGUSTED. You yelling people give metal a band name-screw that, you give humanity a bad name.

Do certain members of the metal community have an attitude problem? What's your position on the gun control debate? Let us know what you think in the comments.

251 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Jimmyboba
    Attitude problem? Laughing in the face of memories of twenty dead children, as well as the 6 teachers and support staff that died to protect the others, is utterly disgusting. I can see why he freaked out. RIP and my condolences to their families and friends. I don't want to begin to imagine what they're going through.
    Megadeth2011
    "What's your position on the gun control debate?" Um, that's not really even related to the article... are you that desperate to start a war, UG?
    millarso
    Yeah, that kind of pisses me off. What the hell is with UG trying to be some political battlezone? That is definitely not the most important point that this story is trying to make.
    My Last Words
    Same thing with the dave mustaine-tarantula article where 50% of the article is about Obama and politics. Oh and about the gun control.. Guns don't kill people People kill people with guns.
    Mouloudo
    guns are made to kill people though, and like you said" people kill people... with guns" so take the guns out of teh equation and a big part of the problem is solved
    breakinslash
    The main point of allowing guns are for self-defense, however there are psychopaths who misuse this. I do agree that gun use should be controlled but definitely not abolished.
    Mouloudo
    that's what I'm saying " however there are psychopaths who misuse this", psychopaths wouldn't " misuse" guns if they didn't have access to it, what's so hard to get? I dont think that there's less mentaly ill people in europe, but they do have a MUCH lower rate of murder AND murder by fire arm, why? cause possessing and selling weapons is illegal
    Mouloudo
    and self defense against what? have you ever used your M16 in the street to protect you from somebody? it's all about the small d*ck syndrome, that's just a big toy and you find lame excuses to ahve one, and if you rellay believe in what you sayn, you should grow ball and take self defense lessons, cause if you dont feel secure and safe without a big barrel in your hand, you got some issues
    Angelicc
    Anyone who has never shot a gun or used one usually is a giant pussy and thinks taking away law abiding citizen's guns away will solve some this stuff magically. Learn responsible gun care to protect yourself because the Police will never be there to save you. The real issue is the blindness to mental health and the problems the person obviously had that went untreated. Take your anti-gun bullshit somewhere else, he could have just as easily used a katana or machete and nobody could have stopped him.
    beau05
    I've grown up to believe differences can be settled (as a last resort) with an honest scrap. I don't see how someone who would rather use his fists to the talking than a f*ggot gun is a pussy
    Angelicc
    Anyone who has never shot a gun or used one usually is a giant pussy and thinks taking away law abiding citizen's guns away will solve some this stuff magically. Learn responsible gun care to protect yourself because the Police will never be there to save you. The real issue is the blindness to mental health and the problems the person obviously had that went untreated. Take your anti-gun bullshit somewhere else, he could have just as easily used a katana or machete and nobody could have stopped him.
    Mouloudo
    yeah cause it's so much manlier to defend yourself with an automatic weapon than to fist fight... even a 12 year old girl could take a 7ft man's life with a gun, couldn't say the same if she was using her fists
    colster6000
    and there is a paradox, you don't need guns for self-defence if other people don't have guns to threaten you with in the first place. That line of argument leads to one of two places, either everyone has guns to protect themselves from everyone else's guns or nobody has guns and thus nobody needs a gun to protect themselves from the other guns. I know which one I prefer!
    viking57
    Yeah but dude, you could outlaw all guns but the psychopaths would still be abel to get their hands on them through gangs and stuff. I mean, marijuanas illegal in most states but that stop people from smoking it.
    Nethero
    You're right. He said "people kill people... with guns." So take people out of the equation and a big part of the problem is solved. Nailed it!
    used123
    People will kill people regardless of what is available to them. Guns, bombs, knives, hell, even pencils can be used to kill. The common denominator in all of these methods is the person. In the case of most mass murders the killer has one or more mental disorders that leads to the killing. We need to fix the problem (treatment of mental illness in America). Guns are a tool, only one means to an end. If someone is so committed to murder, that they would go to a elementary school for christs sake, then they will kill, no matter what is available to them.
    Mouloudo
    without guns, next time a weak stupid kid like him feel frustrated he will punch the wall, break his hand, cry a bit, and voila, rather than pickin mama's guns ( who was also a weapon freak) and press the easykilling button, at least with a knife he would have thought twice about attacking adults with it, cause it's MUCH harder that just pressing a trigger
    Toasted_Waffelz
    You know you can make guns quite easily. He could also fashion an explosive device with household stuff. If people want to kill, they'll find a way. H won't just "punch the wall", he'll take whatever he can find and kill someone. In the moment, it's just as easy to stab someone as it is to pull the trigger.
    latinromans
    however I don't recall any innicident where a crazy guy went into a school and killed 26 people with a pencil.
    Mouloudo
    that's why you hear a lot of news about psychopaths killing children with pencils... or knives... there's nothing in what you say that advocates for gun possession, you only say " if they want to kill they could use other weapons", where does that sentence contradicts the fact that guns should be made illegal? we can't make pencils illegal, nore knives, cause people need them, but who needs automatic weapons? only insecure weaklings like this kids, you take them out of the equation, you might not cure all america's violence problem, but a good damn part of it
    colster6000
    you're missing the point, it's a lot more difficult to commit mass-murder without a gun! Your targets stand a much better chance of either defending themselves or running away too if you can't shoot them!
    2jpe2
    Will taking away utensils stop people from being overweight?
    Mouloudo
    will taking your fingers away stop you from scratching your anus? maybe not but it will help
    noilly
    I agree it's not something thats going to keep the peace, but it's not like guns have nothing to do with an article based on the effects of a shooting..
    WholeLottaIzzy
    I think he might be disgusted.
    iommi600
    No need to explain those upvotes...
    IrishConnor1994
    There are enough 12 year olds on this site that it doesn't matter what he says, a picture of tits will get him lots of upvotes
    K!!LsWiTcH
    oh im sorry did YOU want the medal? izzy take down your tits irish connor wants the medal. sadly its more realistically probably 20 year olds and up upvoting his stuff for the tits. and i think at this point we are all VERY aware of why he gets upvotes...especially when he just repeats what we already know haha
    swave75
    Yes!!! Been waiting for WholeLottaIzzy for a few days now. Thank you.
    scawti
    I agree with him, but he have acknowledged those who were quiet first instead of lumping them together with his firs statement.
    GhostPlayground
    Yeah, but he posted the comments on instagram. Chances are he couldn't fit them all together so he posted separately. I actually wrote a 2-page journal entry not too long ago on the effects of the internet. One of the effects I wrote about was a growing amount of apathy amongst humans, which i'll post as a reply to this comment.
    GhostPlayground
    The lack of humanity in this new world of online-interactions becomes apparent within a few seconds on a social-networking site when a person is exposed to the humor that is promoted throughout the internet. When one browses through the humorous posts made on the site, one is often bombarded with thousands of machine-pressed images with different humorous sayings posted in similar fonts and similar colours. It is deeply disturbing that most of these humorous photographs look as though they were created by robots in a lab, rather than by humans using a computer. It is also disturbing that most of the photographs are filled with apathetic humor that makes people chuckle at subjects such as suicide, death, pedophilia, rape and genocide. Looking at the various humorous photographs, I have come to the conclusion that it comes as no surprise that most of the people on social-networking sites have become apathetic towards many of the people on the same social networking sites. Indeed, it comes as no surprise that Amanda Todd was taunted by thousands of strangers after she committed suicide because of, ironically, taunts similar to those she received after her suicide.
    jrodgers
    I agree with you to an extent, that online interactions have a certain dehumanizing effect. I think most of that comes from how it has progressively rendered actual person-to-person contact unnecessary, and that at some point we will have to ask ourselves how much is too much. However I think you can relax, because i doubt that internet humor is creating mass murderers, or people who laugh during moments of silence for a mass murder
    maury123
    they're lucky he didn't throw them on their heads
    miregal
    You're one of those pieces of shit he's talking about.
    maury123
    ok
    miregal
    How is that comment worth liking in anyway? You think you're funny don't you. Obviously 84 other people think you're funny. Proving that there are far more stupid and inconsiderate people on the planet than people with a conscience.
    GenerationKILL
    I disagree. I am a man of outstanding class and intelligence. Infact, when i read his comment, my monocle fell out into my glass of champagne. You need to lighten up bud, this is UG. Home of moron 17 year old metalheads, not "high-brow bi-weekly."
    Vyden09
    Might just be one of the single best comments I've seen in my life
    younghatter
    Dude, he was making a light of a bad situation. It's not an offensive joke so stfu and stop trying to get likes.
    third(-)eye
    Whoa dude, chill. He was AGREEING with Randy in a lighthearted way. I think it's horrible that people at a show could be so disrespectful, but I thought his comment was funny. Burn me at the stake while you're at it.
    guitargodwannab
    point proven my frien im backing Blythe on this....those ppl who were laughing are pieces of shit and give metal a horrible name. i wonder if they would be laughing if it happened to them? as a human i hope it doesnt happen to anyone
    Bair
    Murders judging murders
    llBlackenedll
    I don't know about you but I always have problems hearing what bands are saying at gigs (and I can never properly hear lyrics if they're playing stuff I've never heard before) so there's always a chance that some of the people just didn't know what was going on - just to give them the benefit of the doubt here. I guess they'd probably notice a lot of people went quiet, but may not have known why.. That being said if I was in a room with a few thousand people and they were all quiet, I'd probably shut up.
    guitar7masta
    From the supposed video evidence it looks like he didn't kill anyone. He was in jail, now he's back, and he'll be going back to defend himself in court. If he deserves to be in jail then jail he will go. You clearly haven't been paying attention to this whole debacle.
    Matt Chavie
    Props to Randy. I don't like LoG, but appreciate what he did and how he's trying to be a good person. It is disgusting that people would do this.
    Lovezoid
    There's always the argument that you don't go to a metal concert to conform to a singer's social demands. While agree that it is pretty inconsiderate to curse in this situation, you could argue it's unfair to put your crowd in the position that if they don't agree or conform, they become *****s. When was the last time Lamb of God proposed a moment's silence for the multitudes of innocent middle-eastern children killed by US drone strikes? Perhaps some of his 'pieces of shit' find selective outrage a little bit hypocritical and therefore do not want to participate for that reason. Personally, I'd have observed the silence. But he's being kind of a dick. All people paid to hear was your music, man.
    younghatter
    I'm not excusing the people who didn't join in, it's disgraceful.. But when you have a room full of drunk people, with lots of excitement in the air, especially metal heads, there will always be people who don't shut the **** up
    introvert10
    I'm as disgusted as the next guy about this tragedy. However, trying to silence a rowdy crowd at a heavy metal concert for one minute and expecting dead silence is a silly thing to expect if you ask me.
    MR.LZZYHALE
    Not really cuz 80,000 NFL fans all over the country were quiet yesterday so its not impossible
    GhostPlayground
    That's true, and football fans can be just as rowdy as metalheads. On a side-note, the fourth quarter of yesterday's game was pretty intense.
    guitoorbenchi
    Sonisphere 2011: Everyone gave 2 minutes of silence for Paul Gray.
    introvert10
    One would assume that a popular musician would get 1 minute of silence at a music festival. Apples and oranges.
    guitoorbenchi
    Maybe its not the people being honored. Maybe its more the people doing (or not doing) the honoring.
    introvert10
    Valid point. I just think it would be a little more expected to have a moment of silence at a football game than at a LOG concert. I mean I like Randy and the band, but the atmosphere at a LOG concert doesn't exactly set up well for this kind of moment. I'll give these people the benefit of the doubt.
    millarso
    I don't like it either, but maybe they just couldn't tell or hear what he said because it was noisy when he asked for the silence. To assume that these people are the scum of the earth immediately is a little harsh.
    Panasonic3
    lol the benefit that they are uneducated and apathetic? yes what a wonderful excuse for heckling the murdered.
    introvert10
    Whoa now. Who said that they were intentionally "heckling the murdered"? My point is that the atmosphere at a show like this doesn't serve well for this kind of moment, so I call into question whether or not it was "intentional". Not sure how you come to the inclusion that it was tbh.
    felipea7x
    I would understand if it happened here in my country, or some other place that hasn't English as a native language. Cause' here at international concerts, many people don't understand English and then whatever the singer says, they answer "YEAH!" It's like: "Are you alive" - "YEAH" Who's here for the first time? - "YEAH!" So if it was here, i think the same shit would have happened.
    Do Re Mi
    Blaming guns is easy. Let's look at gun related violence. A lot of it occurs in impoverished areas. Crime here is often gang related. People rob people, break into homes, sell and use drugs, and often all of this can or is accompanied by murder with a firearm. Why do people commit these crimes? For one, the education systems in these areas (and America in general) are poorly maintained and are not on par with those of other civilized nations. Because of this, many people do not graduate high school or go to college. Because of this, families in impoverished areas stay stagnant in these areas, because they do not have the means to leave, which forces them to fall into a life of crime just to stay alive. These environments are existing almost if in a vacuum, with no change and no way out. These lifestyles are endless cycles, which cause generations and generations of violence and no forward progress. Now, what happens is the news constantly reports mostly all bad news stories relating to violence of this kind. People watch the news every night, seeing these images, mixed with other images, such as war and terrorism overseas. You may not think it has that much of an effect, but over years and years of societal development in this country, people have become both consciously and subconsciously afraid. In this country, we perpetuate fear over and over. It has nothing to do with video games, or movies, or even owning guns. It's our attitudes. It's the way our society has developed. The reason for all that crime is because we're not provided the education we deserve, which makes bad parents which makes bad kids and over and over. We should have the right to buy guns, but the reason we buy so many is for "protection." Why do people want protection? Because they're scared. The same reason a little kid wants an adult there to protect him from monsters in his closet. The mother of this perpetrator was a "gun enthusiast" who was stocked for survival in case of an economic collapse. Why do people want to own 12 guns? Is it for self-protection at that point? With shootings like this one, and like all shootings, you have someone that was mentally unstable. These kinds of crimes have to do with addressing mental health issues in the United States in a more effective way, and this also leads back to educating and parenting. The more tragedies like this happen, it is becoming more and more apparent that we stop looking at mental health issues as an "excuse," and a more legitimate reason that needs to be addressed nationwide. Simply calling the perpetrator "evil" just leads to more fear-mongering. I think that what has happened is horrible, because innocent lives that have cause no harm to the world have been cut short. I feel deep empathy for the families of the victims. So after all that, what I'm basically trying to say is there are so many other underlying reasons why things happen. It's so easy to talk about guns being good or bad, because it's a physical thing. It's something we can see right now that is causing things to happen. However, it's much harder to look underneath that, and examine psychological and sociological reasons for why we, as a nation, have the need to own guns.
    limpidgreen345
    The gaping hole we have in care for mentally ill people in this country is what is to blame for these mass shootings. Mental illness so often goes unchecked even while friends and family know all about it. Of course, dealing with a very serious and very specific problem doesn't make for a very compelling political talking point, so it's just guns this, guns that, guns guns guns almost as if a "high-powered rifle" floated down to the school dragging a poor ****ed up 20-year-old with it. (Excellent article -- "I am Adam Lanza's Mother" -- http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/... ) It's the overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun owners, people that by and large will never commit a criminal offense in their lifetime, that bear the brunt of these ill-conceived gun control ideas. A citizen who obtains a permit to carry commits a statistically insignificant number of murders. Depending on who comes up with the statistics, on the high end it's not even close to a whole percentage point the last several years, and only a small fraction of those are active shooter scenarios targeting the general public -- by and large they're domestics and murder-suicides, again by people who need no permit to carry in their own homes, and who have untreated mental illness that would prevent them from ever owning the gun in the first place. Reducing gun crime by going after people who do not commit gun crimes, while ignoring the gaping holes in the care for the mentally ill -- this is a solution for canard-spewing imbiciles, not for anyone who actually knows anything about public safety.
    PGilbert
    Come On Obama, it's your last term, grow some balls and do something about Gun control. Fuck the NRA. Fuck a 250 year old outdated document. It's time to step up and drag American gun laws inline with modern society.
    MR.LZZYHALE
    Well I dont know where to start or wat to say So i will you know just not say anything
    Mamblingradman
    I'm a gun owner and will not be changing that because of a maniac in Connecticut.
    limpidgreen345
    Nor should you, you're not the problem by a long shot.
    Mamblingradman
    I think shooting is a pretty fun recreational activity, so long as it's not at living creatures. I don't even like to hunt animals because I don't need to in order to live. It's just fun and a good practice in case another man with a gun decides to try and hurt me or my family.
    Panasonic3
    so your fine with getting your constitutional rights stripped away from you? what happens when the government's goons come knocking on your door to come take you to slave camp ("ooohhh that will never happen!") what will you do? say "ok lets go work until we die hooray!!" or will you want to combat them fairly and get them off of your rightfully owned property with the same weapons the guns are allowed to keep? that 250 year old outdated document is there to protect you from oppression, something the obama administration is dealing out in handfuls lately. you might want to read a few things about world history, governments who impose gun control, and then round up their own citizens for purification. it's happened before and it will happen again. just because we sang "land of the free, home of the brave" growing up everyday in grade school doesn't make it true.
    Bair
    "ok lets go work until we die hooray!!" Pretty sure that ones gonna happen either way
    burnummaster
    If the government wants to take you away, what is a gun going to do to stop them? Or is your life a Bruce Willis Movie?
    millarso
    Seriously? Do you really feel that oppressed? I don't think you have any clue what that means. Try going to a third world country, you whiner. You live in a tiny, sad world if you really think the government is going to "round us up for purification". This isn't the freaking Nazi regime for crying out loud.
    tukk04
    Third world means a country that does not associate itself with the eastern or western schools of thought and culture. I believe you mean't to say "impoverished country". Saying people in civilized countries have no place to complain is just wrong, it's like saying the rich have no right to be depressed. We all feel wronged for whatever reasons relevant to our own lives, the feelings of oppression by others is universal, but the reasons are individual.
    millarso
    The term third world has been interpreted a lot of different ways. I didn't necessarily mean poor countries. There are countries with money who are still ruled by oppressive regimes. I'm not saying people in civilized countries can't have gripes (I have plenty), but to say we are oppressed seems quite strong to me. Also, I don't support taking away any Constitutional rights. Most politicians don't want to take guns away. It's just this conspiracy BS that boils my blood. If people really think they would pass gun legislation with the express purpose of putting us in slave camps, they need to cool off.
    Panasonic3
    for whatever reason they pass it, it is still a violation of the constitution.
    svelle
    Seriously the whole f*cking world can get people off their lawn without an assault rifle and you are helpless without your assault rifle? grow some balls. and don't start with that constitutional rights sh*t. start worrying about real problems and not your "right to bear arms" 'Murricah!
    used123
    While I agree with you that we need stricter gun control laws, especially regarding who can purchase guns, I have to say that you should be worried about your "right to bear arms". Well, maybe not that right particularly, but the precedent it would set if that right were removed. In our legal world right now, precedent is frequently the deciding factor in major law cases. If we set the precedent that one right, the right to bear arms, is no longer necessary in our current "world view", that sets a precedent that could be used when another inalienable right is deemed no longer necessary. What is to stop the government from removing our freedom of religion the next time an Islamic terrorist (not trying to be bigoted here, just using an example) bombs an American? If you say fine upstanding citizens, that is an incredibly naive view. It wouldn't even have to be the next time, it could be tens, hundreds of years down the road. This is an extreme example, I admit, but nonetheless, the point I am trying to make is that setting this legal precedent is dangerous.
    svelle
    well that first sentence sounded pretty weird but you get the point. you don't need a gun to defend yourself...
    Irueludruel
    When the criminals have. Gun you do. Saying 'Murricah all the time is pretty annoying and pointless.
    Bair
    "When the criminals have. Gun you do. Saying 'Murricah all the time is pretty annoying and pointless." What if they have a tank? I'll need one too. To.....um...."defend" myself.
    svelle
    First of all, Ireludruel: Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Back to the debate. I never meant that you shouldn't give a shit about the government taking away a constitutional right, but rather that you souldn't care so much about having a gun to shoot someone who comes onto your property and more about things like healthcare social security and the debt your country is in...
    Panasonic3
    i dont own a gun and you're right, i don't need one to defend myself. the campaign of selling you fear.
    thewoodsterix
    You live in a democracy where people are calling for gun laws - if more than 50% of the country demand gun laws they should be put in place. It's that simple. (Until politicians get in the way.) Slave Camps. Get an education.
    Arr0wHead
    Dear Randy: We can't understand what the **** you say onstage... some of the audience might not have been paying enough attention to know if you said "moment of silence" or "we're just gonna change guitars real quick". You act as if people should be hanging on your every word. It could simply have been that they didn't know what was going on.
    brookswt
    you would have had to been mentally challenged to not know what was going on there. i was at that show. he made sure he had everyones attention. the people who were making noise werent just not paying attention, they were reacting to what he said
    felipea7x
    I would understand if it happened here in my country, or some other place that hasn't English as a native language. Cause' here at international concerts, many people don't understand English and then whatever the singer says, they answer "YEAH!" It's like: "Are you alive" - "YEAH" Who's here for the first time? - "YEAH!" So if it was here, the same shit would have happened.
    Carl Hungus
    Its usually a mixed bag of individuals at a metal show. You can have the nicest people in the world show up and then straight malevolent skinheads. Sporting events usually draw families which might explain a more respectful crowd during a moment of silence request. This is of course not true in all situations.
    Raven_Flight
    Go ahead and downvote me, but I never saw the point to the X minutes of silence thing. Of course I wouldn't have laughed or screamed during that moment, but only to respect the guys next to me who feel the need to do it. I don't think I'd be disrespecting the dead in any way by not choosing to make silence when a random guy asks me to.
    zalant
    First, on that night, Randy happened to be the frontman for the band those people paid to see -- hardly a "random" guy. Second, this wasn't some stalled car on the freeway that everyone just calmly steers around, saying to themselves,"Oh, they've got a cell phone. They can call someone to help them." This was different. Randy was calling for 60 seconds of solidarity; a symbolic gesture but important, nonetheless. Most times when someone calls for a moment of silence, it's a necessary pause to really think about someone else for a change, usually someone we didn't even know, but very well could have. Those kids & teachers could just as well have been your kids, sisters, mothers, etc. Wouldn't you want someone to stop and think about you and your loss for a moment while you sit there raising your fist at the sky and wondering how something so awful could happen? I would.
    jrodgers
    The point of it is to take a minute of silence, where everyone in the room, at the same time, is devoting all their thoughts and prayers towards the victims. For the families of these children, it may provide a measure of comfort and support, to say turn on an NFL game where they see 50,000 people united in a moment of silence purely for them.
    Raven_Flight
    Well, I guess that if it's a televised event like the NFL or something like that it makes sense, it's a nice gesture for the people most affected by the tragedy. But looking at it from a merely introspective standpoint, when I learned about the tragedy I did mourn over the victims and had my moments to think about it and speak with other people making conclusions about it. Then 3 days later let's say I'm going to a Lamb Of God concert, I'm not a bad person if I don't want/need to do a minute of silence when Randy asks me to. I bet Randy is actually mad by the fact that the audience didn't "obey" him, not because they disrespected the dead.
    jrodgers
    If it's not your thing, then its just not your thing. As long as you respect others who DO choose to observe moments of silence, which you said you do, there's nothing wrong with that. The people in question here, however did not. Is Randy overreacting? Possibly. Those people could have simply just not been paying attention to what was happening. If there's one thing though i've noticed though since this tradegy, it's been the odd ways everyone has vented and expressed their anger. This is no different.
    Raven_Flight
    Of course. I have to agree with Randy that it's not THAT ****ing hard to do just 60 seconds of silence. If you don't want to, shut up and think of whatever you want but respect the people around you. I still believe Randy overreacted; at least he did continue with the show, it would have been ridiculous to stop playing just because of those guys.
    Panasonic3
    first of all you don't know what people are thinking. second of all, you seem to not understand the power of collective human thought. third of all, refusing to do something easy, like take mental energy and give it to someone else in need, when someone with any wherewithal asks you to, is defiant and childish.
    apartzero
    So what is better? Let people be responsible on their own and not buy or use guns? Or should the government intervene and control gun sale and such? Are the people of the United States an irresponsible bunch who need govenrnemt interference for something so blatantly wrong or should the people themselves act? Should the people take up responsibility or do the government take its whip out? Or pineapples?
    IrishConnor1994
    Lots of Americans choose not to buy guns, but that's not the problem. The problem is when criminals, and other dangerous people buy guns, and use it to shoot up a school, or a theater, or some other public place. The government doesn't need to ban guns if people are that against it, but at least they should be more selective of who they sell their guns to.
    Bair
    I dunno. Here in Canada only the police and people who protect the prime minister are allowed to own/ carry guns. We can have hunting rifles but not hand guns, which makes sense because hand guns only have one purpose, killing humans. Gun violence is WAY lower here and we're only feet from those crazy, cowboy Americans.
    rockerwannabe
    That is incredbly naive. "Cowbow Americans?" Nice sweeping generalization. So you must be a dumb Canuck?
    IrishConnor1994
    Well I'll just guess you were trying to write "cowboy Americans", but try to think about this: in Canada, we control handguns, and firearms in general. So we rarely have mass shootings from citizens armed with guns he bought from his local gun shop. We haven't had theaters or schools shot up by psychos with guns because we don't have guns readily available for those people. Only cops, and people who REALLY need them. TRY to tell me that doesn't make sense.
    Mamblingradman
    To be honest, Canada's policy is a little too strict for my liking. I agree that the layperson shouldn't have assault weapons, it doesn't make any more sense than giving them grenades. But I think a rational adult can be trusted to carry a small handgun (.45 or under) for self-defense, upon a passed background check.
    limpidgreen345
    Tens of thousands of people die in car wrecks every year. If it wasn't for vehicles, it's inarguable that these fatal crashes would not happen. Should we limit the sale of vehicles to prevent this? How many people who drive really NEED their cars anyway when there is public transportation? You can't endanger someone else's rights without endangering your own.
    llBlackenedll
    The difference between guns and cars is pretty clear - cars are a convenient way to transport people and goods from one place to another whereas guns are designed to kill. I don't really think you can compare them so directly. Obviously cars can be used as a weapon, but that's not their sole purpose for existing. Personally, I find it a bit disturbing that so many people want to own a tool that is designed specifically to end lives.
    IrishConnor1994
    exactly, what does the average person need with a gun anyways?
    thf24
    The Swiss government thinks each of its households needs a gun, and it has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world. Explain that one.
    Panasonic3
    the average person needs a gun to protect them from intruders. i dont own any guns nor do i advocate violence of any sort, but we live in a world where we are told to lock our doors and buy security systems. guns offer sense of security especially to those who don't trust the police to protect them. bad cops are a dime a dozen these days.
    introvert10
    Kind of like the killer's mom owned guns for her protection? I challenge you to find any statistical information that guns are fired for protection by citizens more than they are used for mass murders. Good luck with that.
    llBlackenedll
    I guess the problem is that if you live in a country where a lot of the population already owns a gun, you don't really want to be the person that doesn't own a gun. Obviously, it would be better if people didn't have them in the first place but it would be a huge operation to find and destroy all firearms in a country which has so many. As to the statistics about whether the majority of gun fired are offence or defence, I think another interesting statistic would be the proportion of people that were killed in their own home because they pulled a gun on an intruder. I think you're much more likely to get shot by an intruder if you pull a gun on them - most people sneaking into your house are doing so to steal something, not to murder you with a gun, and wouldn't try to shoot you unless they felt threatened. Sure you'd rather not get your stuff stolen but you're covered by insurance for that (I'm pretty sure insurance is cheaper than guns). Still, I believe that people don't need devices designed specifically to kill stuff and everyone owning a gun causes a lot more problems than no one owning a gun. In the UK, we get a much lower percentage of gun crimes. Why? Less guns...
    limpidgreen345
    Blackened, of course there is less gun crime in countries with less guns. Is there less VIOLENT crime in countries with less guns? Sure as hell not in the UK.
    IrishConnor1994
    If you compared the amount of times where it was lucky that citizens are able have guns to the amount of times that someone was able to walk into a store and buy a gun he used to shoot up a public place and kill a bunch of people, it would be OBVIOUS that the positives of bearing arms do NOT outweigh the positive aspects.
    limpidgreen345
    Introvert10, tell me what that statistic would mean anyway. It's not about how often they're used for protection, it's about how often they're NOT used to kill people. Given there are more guns than citizens in the US that statistic isn't going to do much to demonstrate your point.
    third(-)eye
    Has it ever occurred to you that if there were stricter gun control laws that we wouldn't have such a strong need to protect ourselves?
    i_am_metalhead
    To kill all of the dumb****s like you, of course.
    introvert10
    Is it really part of your life plan to troll a conversation that involves the murder of twenty 6 and 7 year old kids? Don't you have anything better to do?
    limpidgreen345
    Blackened -- be careful with your reasoning there. The number of legally-owned guns in the US is estimated to be as high as 400,000,000. There are a bit over 250,000,000 cars in the US, and there are many more car deaths than gun deaths. So it's simply true that the average car is more likely to kill you than the average gun. I'm not arguing any specific point about guns here, just the rationale. If our goal is to have less people killed, going after guns that do not kill people is not going to help.
    Nakama
    Stupid. Cars are used in every day life and have another purpose. Guns aren't used in every day life, I would bet that some of those owned guns have never even been used.
    introvert10
    limpidgreen345 Such a ridiculous argument I don't even know where to start. Time to start looking past the end of your nose dude. I would happily endager children's rights to own guns if it takes those very rights away from people who own them now. BTW, the automobile was invented to make the world more productive, the gun was invented to blow people's brains out. Do you seriously not see the difference?
    dustinp
    Congratulations. You're the problem with this country. If you really think people don't use firearms for personal protection, I invite you to come here to Detroit, where burglaries are the norm. 3 years ago I was sleeping when I heard my door being kicked open. Fortunately I have a 45 on the nightstand at all times, and I grabbed it and walked out. Once I yelled at the man stealing my t.v. and cocked my pistol, he dropped my flat screen and ran out the door without a single shot fired, and I haven't been broken into since. Firearm ownership isn't about violence. Often times violence isn't necessary. I could've had my gun unloaded and it would still have scared him senseless. If the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary had been armed and trained, the outcome would have been different. Unfortunately, the "gun free zones" that are schools serve only to stop teachers and parents from being armed on school property, and as illustrated in new town, and columbine as well, that more gun control will still do absolutely nothing to disarm or quell the intentions of those who seek to break the law
    mradubz33
    Wow...27 innocent lives lost, and your solution is more guns? Give your head a shake. No, this isn't a cut and dried issue where implementing gun control would end all violence. Other issues need to be addressed. Mental health treatment, economic issues, etc., and even that wouldn't end all violence, but to suggest that the solution to gun violence is more guns is absurd.
    introvert10
    mradubz33 Don't bother. This guy sums up the whole problem with the USA. Swallowing poison and expecting someone else to die.
    introvert10
    "You're the problem with this country" I live in Canada where people don't kick in my doors, and people aren't naive enough to think that arming teachers with guns will not follow the obvious and factual trend of killing more innocent people rather than criminals...wake the f$ck up my yankee friend.
    dustinp
    It's been proven time and time again that an armed citizenry does lead to lower crime, and that todays already restrictive gun laws don't stop criminals from getting and using guns in the commission of their crimes. i agree, the issue isn't cut and dry, but taking the firearms of completely law abiding citizens will only aid those who wish to do harm to them. I don't get why people seem to think that criminals will suddenly obey a gun control law, when they obey no other laws. That's what makes them CRIMINALS! Where are you getting statistics that support your opinion that firearms in well intentioned, trained hands cause more harm than good. Following that logic, we should just disarm the police, seeing as you seem to think that everyone with a gun is bad news. Criminals are going to get them regardless. It makes more sense to be armed and waiting than it does to purposely leave yourself defenseless, counting on the 15 minute response time of police, who get there just in time to clean up the bodies
    limpidgreen345
    introvert10, look past the end of your own nose. You didn't know where to start with my argument because completely failed to see what my argument was. If you think this is about the "right" to own guns or drawing comparisons between guns and cars you really missed it.
    Braykah
    Sad that some people can't respect others, I totally understand Randy's frustration and anger.
    TheChaz
    Definitely a good gesture, but know your audience. LoG fans are disgusting. You shouldn't have been surprised Randall.
    PGilbert
    Has he done a sixty second silence for the fan killed at his concert? 1 death is as much as a tragedy at 26.
    Panasonic3
    the man didn't die at his concert, he died of injuries later at the hospital. plus it was a case of assault-self defense. plus his lawyer probably told randy not to talk about it.
    reignofrock
    This somewhat reminds me of a Pearl Jam show where they asked for a moment of silence to honor certain fans who died during one of their shows. People need to learn to be human. I am a prospective teacher and was simply apalled by the recent tragedy. These children never got to experience so much of life. I'm with you, Mr. Blythe.
    agelmar7
    You are aware the war on drugs is not generally considered part of the liberal agenda, yes?
    theblackwell
    He makes a good point, but there are pieces of shit like that everywhere. His town is no better than another. Yeah, those people should've had their asses kicked and thrown out of the show but they're everywhere, especially if they've had to much to drink.
    cbct666
    I live 20 minutes down the highway from where the shooting happened, and I'd have to agree with Randy. Even if you live outside of New England it still deserves the same respect as if it happened in your community. Take a look around the internet, there are people in muslim countries that we BOMB DAILY who are still holding candle light vigils for these children. but some ****ers in oregon cant take a moment of silence? disgusting.
    brookswt
    so far no one has commented who was actually there. i was there and i can assure everyone that he was audible. there was silence yet some people were yelling "get on the the show" or even laughing. i felt emberassed to be part of that crowd. what made it worse was when people were screaming "shut the **** up" and "slap that bitch in the mouth" granted there were maybe a dozen people at the most who where making noise. everyone else was silent. i tried to meet the band at the bus afterwards to give my sincere appologies for the behavior of those drunk ass holes but alas i had to leave. i'll try to clear up any questions about what actually happened if there are any.
    limpidgreen345
    Actual public safety issues, the details of an active shooter scenario, use of force statutes, the ethical issues involved with owning, carrying, and using guns, you sure don't hear gun banners actually talk about this stuff in any detail. I don't suppose anyone can actually cite one statistic from a reputable source that says that the lawful carry of a gun has done anything but reduce crime. Violent crime statistics between jurisdictions with and without lawful carry, as well as violent crime (not gun crime) between the US a few other first-world countries. Of course, Anders Breivik gunning down 69 people with a Mini-14 in a gun ban country -- that's just bad luck. As usual, gun control is an easy position to take for those who don't want to face the real cause, which might involve some uncomfortable looking in the mirror. Talking about gun control is a hell of a lot easier than talking about the crumbling state of American society. If every gun in the world could instantly disappear in an instant, it might be a different story, but that's not the case.
    introvert10
    Well, keep adding more guns to the problem as usual and I'll meet you back here to discuss this all over again in a few weeks.
    limpidgreen345
    In the mean time, you'll be looking for a statistic that says lawful carry does anything other than reduce violent crime, right?
    coman664
    I almost have a feeling of second hand disgust just thinking about it. It should be second nature when you hear the words "moment of silence" to shut the f^&* up.
    spuris
    All I can say is that americans are f*cking dumb. I'm sorry for the children who died but I feel no pity for the society, because these kind of tragedies are your fault, and the people who do these horrible things are the reflection of your crippled society. You care only for your own good, even christmas has become a f*cking shopping marathon for most of you, instead of time you should spend time with your families and appreciate every thing you have, you only care about if there's an iphone 5 under the christmas tree. That's a funny thing watching how americans just destroy themselves from the inside. As for guns, I think that no monkey should be allowed to carry a gun, well, you get my point.
    theblackwell
    Really? The actions of ONE mentally deranged person do not reflect on a whole society. You're an idiot.
    NipperMcNippy
    you know what's sad about these shootings? americans just argue the same ol' shit again as last time, it's a cycle with no change at all and therefor it will keep happening. you're a sad lot of ****s, seriously.
    introvert10
    Watching the USA doing this repeated, idiotic, song and dance every time this stuff happens is like watching a hampster run on one of those f%cking wheels...you can't help but feel for the stupid little thing.
    introvert10
    It is sad isn't it? I wouldn't call them all a sad lot of ****s, bad I do feel sorry for them that they keep doing the same sh!t over and over and can't seem to come to their senses.
    i_am_metalhead
    There are more people murdered collectively in this country everyday than there was at that school shooting. Where's their moment of silence? You can't pick and choose which victims of violent crimes you want to be "sympathetic" to.
    third(-)eye
    If you want to have a moment of silence for each and every murder that happens in this country, be my guest. It seems foolish to order entire football stadiums to do that, though.
    Panasonic3
    sadly, we can pick and chose. some people are raised to look down on other people. it's really stupid.
    MetalMullet
    Tell me moral soldiers, how is a minute of silence of any help? How is it showing respect? People eager to participate in sentimental bullshit like this, probably have skeletons in the closet. When you feel satisfied after taking part in a pretentious moment like a minute of silence during a concert, you should take a look in the mirror. You are looking at a shallow sheep, a lost person without opinions.
    LightxGrenade
    I don't know man you can use that argument over a ton of things people do. Why do people go through the tradition of getting married? Why do people go through graduation ceremonies? Why do people celebrate birthdays or holidays? Why do we have wakes and burial processions when people die? "People eager to participate in sentimental bullshit like this. When you take participation in something as shallow as celebrating your own birth, celebrating the union of two people or the acknowledgement of a academic achievement. Or even mourning someone's passing, it's all things shallow sheep do, a lost person without opinions" ...so you see how stupid that sounds when we apply it to other things? But no you're right asking for 10 ****ing seconds of silence is too much...despite the fact that those 10 seconds would've meant nothing to you otherwise.
    Face R1pper
    Yeah well I too, live 20 minutes down the highway from where the shooting happened, and I find it pretty damn offensive that the whole country thinks they can sympathize with something like this. They have no idea what its like to have your community violated this way (with few exceptions of course), especially Obama. The fact that he felt the need to show his violent, tyrannical face here is the most disrespectful thing anyone could have done in a time like this.
    cbct666
    would you rather that the leader of our nation didnt show ANY sympathy? put aside your political agenda. there are broken families and communities because of all this. the last thing that's needed right now is your own opinion on the president.
    Face R1pper
    Well that's a dangerous way of thinking, opinions on the president are very important. Obama handled this situation very poorly because he is the one inserting his political agenda into a tragic situation. Taking advantage of people who are temporarily irrational from fear and grief is immoral and another example of why he is unfit for political office. Instead of acknowledging the fact that he cannot sympathize with us and could do nothing about an incident such as this one, he fakes sympathy and presents us with more lies and false hope to the more ignorant among us that actually believe he can prevent things like this from happening in the future.
    cbct666
    he's a parent. i think thats enough for him to sympathize with the parents who lost. he offered sympathies and called for the nation to stand together in this time of tragedy when he could have pushed his agenda on gun control or anything else he wanted, but he didn't.
    Face R1pper
    What you say makes no sense though when you consider the fact that he sends thousands of people's children to die while killing thousands of other people's children. The point is, you cannot sympathize with a community that you are not part of. It is arrogant and insulting for people to think otherwise. We don't need the nation to stand together, they can't do anything for us. Sandy Hook is a good place, they can get through this without the rest of the country staring at them and provoking all of this unwanted attention. The victims want to be left alone and the rest of us want to move on with our lives without the rest of the country bothering us by talking about a place they know nothing of.
    cbct666
    and we absolutely do need to stand together as a nation, because the last thing we should do is stand divided in times of tragedy.
    cbct666
    we're all human. we all feel the same emotions whether we live a mile, 20 miles, or 1000 miles away. i highly doubt these parent's responses to the sympathies are "we don't want them". as to the point you make about soldiers in the military, they sign a contract, they know what they are getting into, and they are not forced to do. Albeit, the state of the economy does lead more young people to take the military route now than how many normally would in more ideal circumstances.
    Face R1pper
    Yes we do feel the same emotions. But emotions are conditional. How can you expect somebody living 1000 miles away from Newtown to feel the same as someone who lives in Newtown when they are not living under the same conditions?
    Fendergod666
    I don't see Randy asking for a minute of silence for all of the children that die in Pakistan.
    rockerwannabe
    Probably because Pakistan condones all of it and would behead anyone that spoke ill of their killing of innocent souls.
    pcb1992the2nd
    The audience were lucky he didn't put them in a coma which later killed them.
    jordo246
    It's unlucky you didn't realise that someone already wrote that piece of shit sentence.