will anyone change my convictions by implying that im a heartless bastard who doesn't bleed out both ends at every piece of sad news? no. by attacking me, you only force me entrench my position in rhetoric.

ok so lets just say you've all convinced me - lets ban fireworks and cigarettes and alcohol and trans-fat and anything else that some purported experts say are lethally dangerous to 8 out of 300 million people. yes indeed, that shall be our gold standard - if more than 7 people are injured or killed by it, ban it. less than that and we can tolerate it, yes?

we should stop prosecuting people for drunk driving accidents since it is obviously the alcohols fault. same thing for armed robbery, obviously they've led a life of poverty and that's responsible for their behavior. if someone shoots someone in the face with a firework, we should lock them up for having fireworks - not for assault.

*sigh* rhetoric doesn't work, statistical comparisons won't work, philosophical argument has no effect - all i can say is that you need to step off the cross and think with your mind, not your heart.

edit: accushot, we do not "put up with" the bill of rights.

Edited by - Cold_Void on 6/17/2006 7:14:15 AM

Oh yes, I apologise. It's your right to bear arms. Is it also the right of the little old lady to live down the road from armed men? How about the innocent child caught in the middle of a firefight? What about the kids killed when one of their classmates pulls out his daddy's gun and starts shooting everyone in sight? Would they all agree with with the situation, simply because it's their right to live in a society with guns?

It's also your right to jump in front of cars and set yourself on fire. Is that enough reason to do it? Would you complain this vociferously if you were told it was no longer allowed? To be honest I expect you would, simply out of "principle". You tell us to use common sense, and to be fair make some good points, but then take a hopelessly argumentative attitude and disagree with everything simply because you can. I think common sense is required here, and I think you need to exercise a little of it yourself.

No matter which side of the coin you favor, people will still do what they want, legal or illegal. No matter whether it harms them sleves, and/or others. Rights truthfully, are fleeting and limited to the country one is in.

Debate will continue to the end of time. There will always be people that think they have the "Rights" to do what they want, there will be others that belive in limitations, a balance if you will. It is there that I stand. There are thos that belive the "Government" should control all of what people do, and the people should have no rights of their own. However, this said, unless someone wants to "Switch" sides, there will be no agreement on the issues, including the "Right" to explode a firecracker in your hands.

---

Not that I'm very hopeful. It may work in the UK, and possibly western Europe, but there's no way I can see fireworks being banned in the US. Not in a country where it's legal for homeowners to own firearms...possibly the most stupid thing that American people currently put up with.

---

Right. Let's just ignore little tidbits of information such as the fact that violent crime is consistently lower in places where private ownership is legal, shall we? Let's just ban 'em all, because everybody knows that criminals and ne'er-do-wells would never try to circumvent the law and get their hands on weapons anyway. Let's just ignore the fact that people who hold concealed carry permits are the least likely to be involved in an accidental shooting. Let's just ignore the fact that most accidental shootings occur because the shooter was unfamiliar with how guns work, and that had they grown up learning how to use them those accidents would likely stop happening. Yes, please, let's just throw all that out the window and blame the instrument instead of the perpetrator. Society would be so much safer that way, wouldn't it?

Look, I'm all for having restrictions on certain things, for the simple and easily undertsandable reason that some people are just plain dangerous and should not be allowed the means to be more dangerous. Those restrictions are already in place- convicted felons may not own firearms, for example.

However, the law should not function on a presumtion of incompetence; that is exactly like declaring all suspects guilty until proven innocent. Any free society must assume that any given citizen is a trustworthy, responsible individual, unless that citizen's actions should prove the opposite. That's the way it has to work, or society breaks down into a nanny-state where the government declares what is and isn't appropriate for the masses.

It's the old slippery-slope argument, I know- but it rings true in the world today. Allow the case of the lady spilling coffee on herself to go forward (the infamous "I didn't know it was hot!" lady), and pretty soon you've got burglars suing homeowners for injuries sustained while in the act of breaking and entering. We live in a society that is quickly degenerating into one that puts no value whatsoever on personal responsibility.

How does this relate to fireworks? Like so many other things, fireworks are near 100% safe until used in the wrong way, then they may become lethal. How, exactly, is that any different from gasoline, which is a higly flammable substance available for $3 per gallon right down the street? Or a 120-volt wall socket, which can electrocute and kill if not grounded properly? Or fertilizer, which was the primary ingredient in the bomb McVeigh used to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City? Or a collection of readily available minerals and chemicals that, when combined in the proper quantities, create gunpowder? Perhaps chainsaws, since their capacity for mutilation is second only to that of a woodchipper?

Of course, at the high end of the spectrum, we have those things which are quite obviously far outside the realm of reason- anti-tank rockets, 500lb bombs, etc... so where is the line drawn? Where do we decide that the instrument is dangerous in and of itself, regardless of who handles it? That's the $64,000 question here, isn't it?

We already have a criminal justice system. Those people who misuse fireworks (and firearms) should be put through it, end of discussion. It isn't a question of who got killed by what, but to what extent the killer should be punished for his or her actions. Yes, innocent people are killed by fireworks accidents- but those accidents are ultimately the result of somebody using those fireworks in an improper, illegal fashion. There is a legal term for such an unintentional but obviously negligent killing- manslaughter. The crime committed was not in the posession or use of fireworks, but in negligent actions that resulted in the death of someone who didn't deserve to die. By all means punish the offender for that crime, and do so to the fullest extent of the law.

There is no reason whatsoever to punish every other law-abiding person for the actions of a few irresponsible people who didn't follow the damn directions (do not tamper with, do not aim at living beings, do not use while intoxicated... any of that sound familiar?). In any situation, regarding the use of anything that is otherwise legal to own and use.

There's got to be a line drawn somewhere, yes- but in a free society, that line has to be set on the high side. People not trusted to be responsible will never feel the need to be responsible, IMHO.

Edited by - NukeIt on 6/17/2006 12:10:09 PM

NukeIt I couldn't and haven't said it better, thank you!

Accushot: my own grandparents both have their own firearms, rifles and handguns - and they're more afraid of breaking a hip than being shot. Its somewhat ironic, or maybe just obscene how many of the school shooting/postal attack/office shooting sprees have occured in "Weapon Free Zones", barring the one that happened right here in my own town in '96 which was before they came up with the feel-good bandaid that is a "Weapons Free Zone" - oh, but there hasn't been a shooting here since then so it must have worked. or maybe it was the campaign against school tolerance of bullying and getting involved in those social outcast's lives that really made the difference.

shootouts and killing sprees make sensational news but they aren't representative of 150 million(approx) legal gunowners who use them for everything from protection against rape, robbery, kidnap, and murder(the supreme court has ruled the police have no obligation to protect individuals!)to hunting and sport shooting.

Edited by - Cold_Void on 6/17/2006 1:04:45 PM

I may have made a rather quick judgement on the issue of firearms earlier, and I apologise if it seemed a little headstrong. Having lived my whole life in the UK I am frankly very distrustful of legalising firearms. Arming your citizens, or at least letting them arm themselves, quite honestly scares the living hell out of me. The thought of walking down a road where any of the inahbitants could be carrying a gun is a concept I find completely alien, and the act of allowing your citizens guns to defend themselves even more so. If firearms were legalised in Britain I'd be out of the country tonight...it does just seem like the perfect precursor to anarchy. I'm sure if I'd grown up in the US I would have a different attitude to the whole situation, perhaps even support it, but then again if you Cold_Void and NukeIt lived in the UK you might see things differently as well. It does highlight a huge cultural difference that you rarely notice.

As far as fireworks go I think NukeIt hit the nail square on the head with one statement: "Where do you draw the line?". It is a difficult decision, and shouldn't be based purely on perceived safety. I'm sure no-one will disagree that cars are more dangerous than fireworks, but then again cars serve another purpose. The same argument applies to gasoline, fertilizer and the other substances you mentioned.

In each case it has been decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. Fertiliser enables countries to adequately feed their citizens, many of whom would be suffereing starvation without it. The fact that it can be used as the main component in a bomb has been judged secondary. In the same way, cars have been one of the greatest contributors to human expansion and proliferation in the last 100 years, and in my opinion it's unlikely that we would be as advanced a race without the travel and communication benefits afforded to us. Again, cars kill people. But again, the general consensus has been (rightly or wrongly) that the advantages outweigh the effects of the occasional tragic accidents that do occur.

I'm just not sure that the same can be said of fireworks. Sure, they do provide some entertainment to people who like watching things go bang. But they are inherently dangerous, being explosives engineered to explode in an aesthetically pleasing way. It's my opinion, and you may disagree, that the benefits afforded to us by fireworks - entertainment - do not justify the risk to people's lives or property.

Imagine a new entertainment show is aired on TV that is very popular with a majority of the population. The only caveat is that a dozen people are killed each year, every year, without fail, through various accidents and deliberate attacks that occur as a result of this show being produced. This form of entertainment wouldn't be allowed, and why should fireworks? It's a crap metaphor I know, but exactly the same situation as we're in.

I realise that in a way this is putting a price on human life, but we have to have some way of, crudely, judging "right" from "wrong". I don't believe the entertainment provided by fireworks is worth one human life, and I'd hope others feel the same way.

I do in fact live in an area that does not allow fireworks. They are illegal for purchase, posession, and use in the state of New Jersey. However, People do acquire them across state lines in PA, where it is legal to own them. I've never witnessed an accident with any manufactured firework, and I've set off quite a few myself (while not in NJ, of course), along with a large number of sparklers and confetti-poppers. None struck me as particularly dangerous.

The closest thing we have to fireworks in-state are model rocket motors- I think that it's pretty clear what sort of consequences the misuse of those could have; not too long ago I had a rocket hang on the launch rod and lift off anyway, taking the whole pad and launcher assembly with it about 50 feet straight up (this was a small rocket, mind you, a A10-3T motor, generating less thrust than the basic level A8-3- you can buy all the way up to F and G class before you need a permit). I found out later that a little bit of glue got inside the launch lug when I was building the rocket, which was enough to cause friction with the launch rod. Unexpected accident, yes- flawed product, no. Had anyone been injured, it would have been entirely my fault and my responsibility.

There are provisions within the laws regulating these types of things that allow the manufacturer to be sued and/or prosecuted if their products are proven defective. In the vast majority of cases, it is user error that causes an accident, not any inherent danger in the product. There was actually quite a big fuss over a bill that got passed in Congress which protected gun manufacturers from frivolous claims- it has become something of a standard practice in some places to sue the manufacturers and vendors for each and every incident (for no reason other than that the companies have more money than the perpetrator of the actual crime). The bottom line is that something has to be proven unsafe in order for its manufacturer to be held accountable, or for the product to be banned.

I think we can all agree that anyone without the proper training is utterly incapable of safely handling high explosives- hence the reason why access to such things is severely restricted and given only to people who have proven an ability to handle such things safely (demolition companies, mining operations, etc). Fireworks are not, however, classified as high explosives. Most fireworks are created using some variation on phosphorous and gunpowder, neither of which are actually explosives at all, but rather fuels (they burn, but do not explode unless under pressure, as in a rifle cartridge). For the grade of fireworks that are seen in professional shows, you do need a license and a permit. Explosive fireworks beyond simple cherrybombs are illegal very nearly everywhere.

For ordinary consumer fireworks, however, the directions are clearly printed on the package along with a series of warnings about improper handling, storage, use, etc. If someone chooses to purchase such an item and then disregard those directions and warnings, that is their choice- and there are consequences for that choice. If someone gets hurt, it isn't because the product was dangerous (there are already provisions for that), it was because someone stored, handled, or used it in a dangerous fashion.

I do not believe that fireworks are dangerous, and I do not believe they should be banned completely. I agree completely with the restriction on higher-grade ordinance and explosives, but that ought to be the limit of the restriction/prohibition. I won't go into my exact views on guns and gun control in here, as that is not the purpose of this thread, but I will state that I am a gun owner (I am almost 20 years of age and own one rifle, and will soon be buying a second. I am not yet old enough to purchase a handgun, but I will when I reach 21) and a card-carrying member of the NRA.

It's another marathon post brought to you by TET! Re: what Chips said, I stopped posting because I didn't have the disposable time to construct another post. Such a thing takes on the order of one and a half to two hours.

Cold_Void

---

ok so lets just say you've all convinced me - lets ban fireworks and cigarettes and alcohol and trans-fat and anything else that some purported experts say are lethally dangerous to 8 out of 300 million people. yes indeed, that shall be our gold standard - if more than 7 people are injured or killed by it, ban it. less than that and we can tolerate it, yes?

---

Ok let's break this down. Judging by your wording, may I presume you don't think cigarettes, trans-fats or alcohols are dangerous? The sarcasm you constantly display throughout most of your posts is getting on my (and presumably Balthazar's) nerves. In fact, I think I'm going to take everything you say literally just to make up for it.

Once again, I lay this before you. Though it may not be immediately obvious, smoking has pretty well had it. It's being banned all over the place. Alcohol is getting some pretty negative attention too (and good riddance if you ask me) and there are calls for restrictions on trans-fats. So you've rather scored an own goal by citing examples of things which are indeed being brought into the public eye. It's true the alcohol will probably never be banned but governments spend millions of pounds and impose serious sanctions on companies in an attempt to get people to drink less of it. I'd say that all of the above are rather more dangerous than a 0.00000267% fatality rate.

---

we should stop prosecuting people for drunk driving accidents since it is obviously the alcohols fault.

---

No, it's not the "alcohols (sic) fault". Drink drivers are culpable for their actions, they chose to get behind the wheel when they were slammed. They may not have intended to hit anyone but that doesn't change anything. It also doesn't make it a correct analogy to use for fireworks. There are no restrictions in place beyond what we currently have for several reasons;
1) It's not practical to ban cars or alcohol. You Yanks bloody well made a complete hash of prohibition so no-one's going to try that again, except maybe in the Middle East. I'm not going to waste my word count explaining cars to you for the umpteenth time.
2) Drunk driving is already banned. And it is enforced to the best of the abilities of the police, but it is still rather difficult to catch people. Speeding tickets pay better anyway.
3) Different metabolisms react differently to drink make even the current guidelines shakey at best. It is possible that being under the limit is still too much. Banning alcohol in the blood full stop while driving is simply unreasonable, plus would be ridiculously hard to enforce fairly.

---

same thing for armed robbery, obviously they've led a life of poverty and that's responsible for their behavior. if someone shoots someone in the face with a firework, we should lock them up for having fireworks - not for assault.

---

Having a violent childhood does not absolve you from guilt. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. As for fireworks, if you're dumb enough to walk around in public with a firework where they're banned then you should be locked up. Both for possession of contraband and for greivous (or actual) bodily harm, assault wouldn't apply so you are right about that. Of course, I'm assuming it was accidental.

---

*sigh* rhetoric doesn't work, statistical comparisons won't work, philosophical argument has no effect - all i can say is that you need to step off the cross and think with your mind, not your heart.

---

I am thinking with my mind and I find it rather silly that you treat your opposition as though they're some bleeding heart crybaby spewing rhetorically poor, grammatically incorrect nonsense.


NukeIt

---

Right. Let's just ignore little tidbits of information such as the fact that violent crime is consistently lower in places where private ownership is legal, shall we? Let's just ban 'em all, because everybody knows that criminals and ne'er-do-wells would never try to circumvent the law and get their hands on weapons anyway. Let's just ignore the fact that people who hold concealed carry permits are the least likely to be involved in an accidental shooting. Let's just ignore the fact that most accidental shootings occur because the shooter was unfamiliar with how guns work, and that had they grown up learning how to use them those accidents would likely stop happening. Yes, please, let's just throw all that out the window and blame the instrument instead of the perpetrator. Society would be so much safer that way, wouldn't it?

---

I'm comparing two countries, the US and UK.
In the UK, the death rate from guns is approximately 3.53 per 100000 units of population. In the US, the death rate from guns is approximately 10 per 100000 units of population. Well, in 2001. In fact, in the US, the death rate from gun-related murders was 4.09, higher than the total number in the UK. One country has guns, the other doesn't. Maybe you feel safer with your shotguns, automatic pistols and whatnot, but I know I prefer the UK. To those who want to know where I got the statistics, here and here.. I used 2001 because that was the date for the latest UK population census according to Wikipedia.

---

However, the law should not function on a presumtion of incompetence; that is exactly like declaring all suspects guilty until proven innocent. Any free society must assume that any given citizen is a trustworthy, responsible individual, unless that citizen's actions should prove the opposite. That's the way it has to work, or society breaks down into a nanny-state where the government declares what is and isn't appropriate for the masses.

---

Trouble is that people really are stupid as hell. No really, they are. The pass mark for GCSE Maths in England was 16% or some ludicrous figure. You have Yanks asking English tourists if they know a Mr. Bartholomew in Exeter (true story). By the same note, shouldn't we permit drunk driving until you personally show you cannot steer a car with 10 pints of lager in your system? After all, surely it's like presuming drunks are incompetance. As you say later on, it's how far you're willing to go.

---

pretty soon you've got burglars suing homeowners for injuries sustained while in the act of breaking and entering. We live in a society that is quickly degenerating into one that puts no value whatsoever on personal responsibility.

---

This has happened already. Sad but true.

---

How does this relate to fireworks? Like so many other things, fireworks are near 100% safe until used in the wrong way, then they may become lethal. How, exactly, is that any different from gasoline, which is a higly flammable substance available for $3 per gallon right down the street? Or a 120-volt wall socket, which can electrocute and kill if not grounded properly? Or fertilizer, which was the primary ingredient in the bomb McVeigh used to blow up the Federal building in Oklahoma City? Or a collection of readily available minerals and chemicals that, when combined in the proper quantities, create gunpowder? Perhaps chainsaws, since their capacity for mutilation is second only to that of a woodchipper?

---

Ah, but look at the odd ones out of that list. If you use them in the way that they were intended , that petroleum spirit burns in tiny little droplets inside a carefully controlled environment, that 240V (over here) wall socket provides electrical power safely and efficiently (you even mention my own point), that fertiliser gives the Farmer Joe's crops the nitrates they need to grow properly, the chainsaw is invaluble for destroying the largest wildlife havens on the planet. One the other hand, you have fireworks and gunpowder. One is designed to explode violently and kill people, the other to propel small bits of metal through tubes at supersonic speeds. Well, of course not but that's my point. Gunpowder is heavily , if not brutally legislated on my goverments around the globe. It is indeed designed to explode violently. With fireworks, it is their sole purpose in life to explode. If they do not trigger a rapid expansion of air and a shower of hot phospherous, they are not doing their job . I think you see where I'm going with this. Governments keep a very close eye on nitrates and gunpowder. Comparatively, fireworks are all but left to their own devices.

---

There is no reason whatsoever to punish every other law-abiding person for the actions of a few irresponsible people who didn't follow the damn directions (do not tamper with, do not aim at living beings, do not use while intoxicated... any of that sound familiar?). In any situation, regarding the use of anything that is otherwise legal to own and use.

---

This is what it all boils down to. Are those lives, limbs and land (sorry, couldn't find anything else that alliterated) worth the 'pleasure' of seeing lights in the sky? Looks like it's a question that will never truly be answered and I suppose depends on your philosophical view, Utilitarianism vs. Contextualism.

---

Imagine a new entertainment show is aired on TV that is very popular with a majority of the population. The only caveat is that a dozen people are killed each year, every year, without fail, through various accidents and deliberate attacks that occur as a result of this show being produced. This form of entertainment wouldn't be allowed, and why should fireworks? It's a crap metaphor I know, but exactly the same situation as we're in.

---

I'd like to continue Accushot's, erm... thought experiment. What about the Roman Amphitheatre? Do you consider that brilliant entertainment and fun for all the family? The Romans certainly thought so, the Flavian Amphitheatre could hold about fifty thousand people and it was still packed.


Ok, so Accushot has addressed most of the points I made above, but I wanted to say something anyway. I hope I added something, because it is not very fun to type out a huge, 1100-word post for two hours.

Unless somebody says something revolutionary, I'll stop posting. I've made my points to the best of my abilities and stated my ethical and philosophical viewpoints. Good night and good luck.

my position has always been that blaming inanimate objects for the behavior of people is stupid - and how can you say that alcohol and cigarettes and fireworks don't compare? all three are sources of pollution(brewing releases co2), completely unnecessary, and lethal when used improperly

1. joe's smoking a cigarette - he improperly disposes of the lit cigarette in a trashcan and sets the building on fire - 10 people die from fire and smoke inhalation

2. joe's drinking and driving - he goes to make a left turn but doesn't yield to traffic and slams into a car crossing the intersection - 3 people die in the collision

3. joe lights a firework in the middle of a large apartment complex - the firework flies into a window and sets someone's room on fire - 5 people die in the ensuing blaze

now for more innocuous things

4. joe is frying patties at his job - he improperly handles the meat, recontaminating it with e coli after it's been cooked - everyone who eats there that day gets sick, and two people die

5. joe has been fired for his poor hygiene and is now driving a bus - lets say its a double decker. he decides he can safely pass under a bridge, even though he's never tried this particular one before - the bus doesn't clear and 5 people in the top are killed

who's at fault in every instance? a person. people kill people, inanimate objects just facilitate incompetence and irresponsibilty - we need to respond rationally, and requiring 30-minute interlock-breathalyzers in cars to prevent drunk driving is not rational (yes, some idiot in new jersey actually tried to pass a law requiring interlock devices for everybodys car) nor is banning fireworks because a handful of people out of hundreds of millions can't use them responsibly.

it may sound cold to all of you, but statistically fireworks have an acceptable risk - a lower risk than bicycles, as a matter of fact. so before you ban fireworks, ban bicycles and skateboards and swimming and alcohol and smoking

so i say, lock em up - lock everyone up who commits an act of manslaughter - and make a big deal about it, because everybody needs to know they are responsible for their own behavior and that blaming society and inanimate objects is never acceptable.

re:the opposition - they are a bunch of bleeding hearts. the reason they're called bleeding hearts is because they constantly fall back on such "arguments" as "how would you feel" "what would you tell" etc - while these may make an emotional impact on the debate, they lend nothing of substance - i could respond, well blah blah blah how would you feel if *situational reversal*? and the debate would still be going around in what-ifs. If you can't see the direct relationship between greater liberty & responsibility, if statistical comparisons like fireworks vs alcohol etc don't move you, and the logical conclusion of prohibition in a supply& demand system doesn't occur to you, then you are truly lost and all you can respond with is that 1 death is never outweighed by the fulfillment of millions of other people's potential for happiness. well i say it is - and any country that has ever gone to war, used capital punishment, or allows its people the slightest degree of freedom in their day to day lives(like driving, alcohol, smoking, unprotected sex) implicitly agrees with me

Edited by - Cold_Void on 6/22/2006 2:15:34 PM

@TET: Agreed on nearly all counts. And there's a lot of them in that post...

@Cold_Void
I could almost see where you were coming from until now. Without wishing to sound too rude, your stance now seems to be hovering somewhere between ignorance and arrogance, and the points you make are getting more and more ridiculous.

You may have shot yourself in the foot with that last post. Your points are all fantastic examples of one of the points we've been trying to hammer home for a while now; that everyday objects are safe when used in the way that they are intended to be used. Let's see shall we:

1. Cigarettes are not meant to be thrown into bins while still alight.
2. There is no way in hell that cars are meant to be driven while under the influence of alcohol. How you consider this a valid point is beyond me - there's a reason we've been using the same example.
4. The key word here is "improperly".
5. You are clearly not supposed to drive buses into low bridges - that would most likely count as improper use of a bus.

And now for the firework point:
3. Oh look, Joe lit a firework. And in the process of exploding it gets out of control and kills someone. What exactly did Joe do wrong? The fact that it's near an apartment building is inconsequential; he could just as easily have lit a firework in a field and have it fly out of control into a nearby spectator.

I've seen it happen. I've been at a professionally-organised firework display where a rocket has been launched and ended up flying into the crowd near me. Three people were injured in the accident. One suffered third-degree burns to her face and upper body and had to undergo reconstructive surgery and months in hospital. Despite our efforts the other two, a middle-aged couple, both died at the scene. You can scoff at the introduction of emotion into the argument, but I had to watch two people die right before my eyes and that's something I hope you will never have to go through. It's difficult to talk about it even now. Perhaps if you'd been through a similar experience (although I sincerely hope you don't) you'd be less cold and calculating about the whole issue.

Now, I'd like to know what exactly did anyone do wrong? All the display team did was light a firework, they did nothing untoward at all. Or perhaps it was the couple's fault? Were they acting irresponsibly? Were they being stupid, acting dangerously or taking excessive risks? No, they were standing with the rest of us watching a professional set off fireworks in the manner in which they are intended. They died.

my examples were to illustrate that the instances of fatality are almost invariably caused by misuse, _not_ proper use - leaving accidents aside - and to call for more personal accountability. personal accountability is important in every aspect of life, whether you're flipping burgers, driving a bus, or just getting pished with friends.

i'm not an expert qualified to judge the culpability of pyrotechnicians and municipal officials who decide things like how far the crowd needs to sit away from the fireworks, but obviously only three parties could be at fault - 1. the pyrotechnicians 2.the 'official' who plans the event 3.the manufacturer.

accidents have not been the central focus of this thread and its counterproductive to try and argue who's at fault for what when you're in no position to judge as firefighters, pyrotechnicians, and bureuacrats might be. needless to say, if a product has an unacceptably dangerous defect the manufacturer is held to account

it does seem stupid, to put it mildly, to mention this instance as a pro-fireworks-ban-point since such a ban would affect only the consumer fireworks that weren't involved - the cities after all, want to keep the revenue from large events rolling in.

hehe - Cold Void, I agree with Accushot - I really don't understand where your posts are going

Of course inanimate objects don't get up and kill people, it requires humans to do that by using them - either intentionally or accidentally (well, unless you count Christine!). That's why they have banned humans from possessing the fireworks unless they are legislated or licensed to utilise them. Kinda like cars, guns, aeroplanes etc.

I originally thought your arguement was that it intruded upon your human rights or something - to which the whole thing started with "if it's your human rights, what about the rights of others" - now I would merely say "what rights?"

People seem to like to say "it's my right to do this as I like etc", but times and things change - and it's no longer your "right". Don't like it, then best get voting next time around (or run for local office).

Edited by - Chips on 6/23/2006 4:53:42 PM

(Honestly I only read like three posts cause im lazy, and wanted to add my two cents. Plus I need to get in my now yearly post)

As someone whose house has almost been burned down more than three time by illegal private fireworks displays, I'm against them. Anything big is illegal here, but people still get their hands on it. My neighbors do this, but not responsibly. Nowhere near responsibly.

The other day I almost witnessed a car explode due to a 10 year old kid launching a bottle rocket in the middle of the street.

I've seen a tire caught on fire due to snap n' pops and gasoline (neither of which are illegal here, but it was a part of a larger display) placed in the street.

We've had to replace the screens in our windows on more than one occasion because these neighbors (yes, the same people as the last two) shoot bottle rockets at our house.

Basically my point is that regardless of how many people who use fireworks are responsible, there will always be those who are putting at risk not just their own lives but the lives of those around them who don't necessarily want to participate. The worse part is that even though it's illegal where I live, the police are so underfunded that even when they get calls from MULTIPLE neighbors that someone is shooting explosives at cars (yes, that's what it is. I know you get an image of an RPG and a tank, but you should), they don't do anything. People don't realize that in certain hands fireworks can be deadly.

That is all.

Chips, i am a registered voter, and i talk to my representatives frequently - thx

---

People seem to like to say "it's my right to do this as I like etc", but times and things change - and it's no longer your "right". Don't like it, then best get voting next time around (or run for local office).

---

it sounds like you think human behavior should be legislated according to its popularity - american idol meets human rights

Edited by - Cold_Void on 6/23/2006 6:52:20 PM

Edited by - Cold_Void on 6/24/2006 5:36:50 PM