Are fireworks too dangerous to use?

[Guns Guns Guns]

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission just released its annual fireworks report for 2011.


The numbers are estimates, but you get the picture.


In 2011, there were four deaths and 9,600 emergency room visits due to fireworks; 65 percent of those injuries occurred between June 17 and July 17.


Other interesting facts: more than two-thirds of injuries happened to males.


Nearly 26 percent happened to children under the age of 15.


Think sparklers are a safer alternative?


Think again.


It’s estimated that more than three times as many injuries were due to sparklers than bottle rockets, 1,100 to 300.


Almost half (46 percent) of injuries were to fingers and hands, followed by the eyes (17 percent), and the head, face and ears (also 17 percent).


It’s going to be an especially bad year for fireworks.


The extreme heat and dryness we’ve been having won’t help matters any.



http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/03/3689483/eric-winkler-play-with-fireworks.html

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/03/3689483/eric-winkler-play-with-fireworks.html#storylink=cpy
​

 

[tinfoil]

LOL
Fuck you hand wringers

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

LOL Fuck you hand wringers

So preventing your state from burning down is a bad thing for a governor to push for?

.

I think common sense applies here. No one is upset that you are not allowed to light fireworks in the mall or shoot bottle rockets on a city bus. If the area is under serious drought conditions, they restrict activities that could start fires. They do not allow people to burn leaves & trash, they restrict off-road vehicles in certain areas, and they put a temporary ban on fireworks.

Discuss.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

what? you didn't get enough attention in that thread(s)?

 

[NOVA]

.



Discuss.

Can't pinheads "Mind your own business"

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

When the proper and lawful use of something can, due to temporary conditions, cause serious loss or injury to others (especially to those not involved), I have no problem with the ban.

.

 

[NOVA]

Can't pinheads "Mind your own business"

.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

.

The proper role of government is to protect the rights of those victimized by the direct action of others. This seems to apply. One does not have the right to endanger others needlessly.

.

 

[Damocles]

.

This ignores the context. Is there reason to believe that there is a fire danger?

 

[signalmankenneth]

Yes they are?!!

Fireworks can also start forest and brush fires too! A cherry bomb, M-80 or sliver salute can do this to your hand!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

This ignores the context. Is there reason to believe that there is a fire danger?

The context is plain to see.


It’s going to be an especially bad year for fireworks.


The extreme heat and dryness we’ve been having won’t help matters any.


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/03/3689483/eric-winkler-play-with-fireworks.html

 

[Damocles]

Fireworks can also start forest and brush fires too! A cherry bomb, M-80 or sliver salute can do this to your hand!

And you can be decapitated in a car accident. I suppose you want to ban cars?

 

[Damocles]

The context is plain to see.


It’s going to be an especially bad year for fireworks.


The extreme heat and dryness we’ve been having won’t help matters any.


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/07/03/3689483/eric-winkler-play-with-fireworks.html

"Are they too dangerous to use?" was the question in this thread. The answer would be "sometimes". It is beneficial to avoid being disingenuous when quoting on a board like this. You pulled a quote out of context to pretend I said something other than what I said in another thread.

And you should remember "danger to others" as part of my quote, not danger to the user... If you choose to take a risk it is on you, you have no right to risk others.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

"Are they too dangerous to use?" was the question in this thread. The answer would be "sometimes". It is beneficial to avoid being disingenuous when quoting on a board like this. You pulled a quote out of context to pretend I said something other than what I said in another thread.

The context was the same.

Is a ban of fireworks acceptable owing to the danger of death, property damage, or injury?

Funny, in the "other thread" when faced with the same issue, you said:

The proper role of government is to protect the rights of those victimized by the direct action of others. This seems to apply. One does not have the right to endanger others needlessly.

What's changed?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

And you can be decapitated in a car accident. I suppose you want to ban cars?

Did he say that?

 

[Damocles]

The context was the same.

Is a ban of fireworks acceptable owing to the danger of death, property damage, or injury?

Funny, in the "other thread" when faced with the same issue, you said:

The context was not the same. One was about a governor who wanted to avoid having fires, this one is about idiots injuring themselves.

What's changed?

See above.

 

[Damocles]

Did he say that?

Did you see a question mark?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Its good to have such loyal fans as Rootbeer.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The context was not the same. One was about a governor who wanted to avoid having fires, this one is about idiots injuring themselves. See above.

The context is exactly the same.

Someone wants to ban fireworks. Avoiding fires is clearly mentioned in the OP, as I've already pointed out.

What that "someone" was a Republican governor, you said this:

The proper role of government is to protect the rights of those victimized by the direct action of others. This seems to apply. One does not have the right to endanger others needlessly.

Now that someone who's not a Republican governor advocates the same ban, you seem to be wavering.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Did you see a question mark?

Is it beneficial to avoid being disingenuous when quoting on a board like this?