Son Died By Lighting Fireworks On His Head

[psyche101]

@Yamato

I wondered if he thought that it wouldn't ignite? from what I heard about it. I haven't read over this thread so I don't know if that was asked or mentioned. But, did he not pick it up thinking that it was a dud after it was first lit? I wondered if alcohol played a factor in it. Was he joking like ? and it accidentally lit? If so maybe we need to ban alcohol? I don't want to ban alcohol. But when is enough enough with all these people wanting to ban things.

Catch a cab to the pub - alcohol is no problem

Do not drink whilst under the influence - alcohol is not a prob,em

Do not operate heavy machinery whilst under the influence - Alcohol is not a problem

Do not operate explosives (which is what fireworks actually are) - alcohol is not a problem

Alcohol is regulated, Alcohol is illegal in all these instances, that is why the jails are FULL of people who messed up on alcohol.

Alcohol is already illegal to minors, in the workplace in public, and in the operation of anything that can affect others.

People are SO complacent with the laws, they forget they exist!!

So why is a law on explosives such a bad idea, and why do most other countries have the ban in place, and work it to their advantage, with no resulting bushfire, injury, fire related damages death or pollution?

What is different about the states? Why is it different there, and why is it not a stupid thing there, when it is a stupid action in every other place in the world?

Edited August 24, 2015 by psyche101

[Beefers]

I do not see where you proportionate how many people own cars vs how many people own pools?????

Thought we might give that important one a miss huh?

Or is your math not quite as good as your thought?

Did I say anything about owning cars or pools? No.

I responded to you turning a blind eye to proportioning over time (while accusing others of doing so).

75k+ alcohol related deaths a year (200+ a day) versus a handful in a day. I am not even mentioning the huge amount of injuries and billions of dollars of damages it causes.

And on that 1 day a year, alcohol is still more dangerous if you consider the amount of people using it versus incident rate compared to fireworks.

I realize it will never be banned because of hypocrisy and it is important to the economy, but how on earth can you say that laws regarding alcohol are effective?

"only" 75k deaths, yeah, that's not bad, let's call it effective..., but oh no, 4 deaths from fireworks? Let's ban it immediately, there's no other solution.

[Myles]

This all you can offer Myles? No stats to back your position, nothing to counter all the links I have given, not even a decent reason?

The best you have is "Heaps of people die doing other stuff, so why should I care?"?

Really???

You are a poster boy for why the ban should be reinstated.

Earlier in the thread I provided plenty of stats showing how swimming pools are much more dangerous than fireworks. You commented that it was OK because there are regulations that require fences and people should be more responsible and not let children swim alone.

You skipped over the part about drunk people drowning in pools. I even provided a link to the recent drowning in a pool owned by Demi Moore. Pools are more dangerous than fireworks.

Actually, I am the poster boy for why they should NOT be banned. I have never had a fireworks accident. I use them according to their directions. I do not put them on my head.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Myles

[aztek]

...... but how on earth can you say that laws regarding alcohol are effective?

"only" 75k deaths, yeah, that's not bad, let's call it effective

well, it is not regulation's intent to limit deaths, injuries, and loses, its intent is to give the state a reason (law) to punish you. i'd say regulatiosn are pretty effective, for what it was designed, we hold more people in jails than any other country, and lawyers and the systems makes lots of money.

Edited August 24, 2015 by aztek

[Myles]

You are the perfect example of a socal fail. You do not care one bit about what the next person has to put up with, as long as you have what you want. Social fail.

Sounds like you with pools and trampolines.

[Jarocal]

But they impact many every 4th of July. They cause fires, they tie up emergency services, which your taxes pay for, and you do not get a nice fireworks display in return. Their idiocy injures and kills people every year, just because some people feel they are responsible does not mean they are. And the injury, damage and death statistics are proof of it.

This is impacting you, and every citizen directly. I see the premise as back to front - because some people are responsible with explosives is no reason to let every idiot out there have them, how it should work is if an idiot can cause harm, take the object away altogether and make people show responsibility i.e. licensing.

I think the only difference you and I see is I proposed a regulated body, whereas you suggested a regulation that shows individuals have skill and responsibility, you have more faith in the average person than I do, and I have not seen the gaming licenses in action, but if you feel that is an effective measure for licensing, it would be a great program to implement. The only difference in how we look at these proposals is local knowledge, where I admit you have a great advantage over me. As such, I would be pleased to see licensing as opposed to the crazy open ended solution that is currently in place and is replacing the sensible model.

I personally prefer the open ended solution but part of compromise is meeting in the middle. A licensing scheme similar to hunting, fishing, or boating will not eliminste 100% of injuries but injuries still occur in areas with bans in place.

The only problem with that is it does not work. Corruption comes in, and those with guns - military and police - end up with ALL the rations and the needy see little if any, that is what happened in Bandah Aceh. Officers were smiling as they brandished rifles to steal the food for themselves while villagers starved. All we do is feed the corrupt.

You misunderstand, currently 3rd world countries get those bags of staple foods from us. If our domestic social assistance were modeled the same way it would be considered barbaric.

MIlitary has to have a hand, as they are ready to mobilise and there is often a danger element in these instances.

I agree and that is why I don't complain about the bloated military budget like a knot of others do. It costs to have the logistics our military can provide and while there is excessive spending I don't find it as over the top as some do.

[+DieChecker]

Would that stop the fires that fireworks start? Would it curb the 12,000 injuries and remove that taxpayer cost? Would it remove the pollution? Would it remove the nuisance factor? Would it assist and build an industry?

I have said many time throughout this mans death HIGHLIGHTs a much bigger problem.

It might. And in many, many places such laws are already in effect. But going back to the OP, this fellow would be just as dead. His failure was a bad choice to pick up a dangerous firework. No law can prevent all stupid choices. Odds are if there was legislation proscribing the use of fireworks in the same vicinity as alcohol, that this guy would still be dead. Like I said back in July, the shear scale of offenders during the Fourth of July celebrations means there is no way to enforce such legislation on that day.

NO you would not, FFS, you would be human, you do not have to break down to a blubbering mess to recognise value in life!! ONE Poster has offered the downright disgusting remarks the personify the level of apathy you are speaking of, and it is offensive and disgusting. How people like that face a mirror each morning is what I find an Unexplained Mystery.

Being callous isn't apathy, my friend. Callous simply means we understand that someone died and there isn't anything to do about it, and we move on. Sure, we can spend millions on a new law that will only save enough people to count on one hand, or we can put those millions toward stopping hundreds of deaths in some other cause. Fighting to save everyone is noble, but not cost effective when we still have tens of thousands of people dying in stupid car accidents, and apparently accidents involving pools.

Everybody else has buried their guilt in statistics, of people die driving, then people can die lighting fireworks - mate I consider that academically challenged, not an answer!!! That people have that mentality at all I find a serious concern!!

It is not right mate, it is not "how anyone could live" it is not toughening up, it is just being a selfish prick. Life matters, this law costs much damage, injury and life. That make it a stupid law, it is that simple, really it is.

And mate, that is ALL I said to get people's back's up! Seriously!! I do not think I am the drama king here!

Like I said, it is possible that someone will pick up this cause and champion it so that a law is re-instated, or a new law drafted, but given no one seems to feel as deeply as you do, not even the fellows family, that it simply will not happen. Laws don't write themselves, and even a politicians time is valuable enough that it would cost millions to get just a common sense law passed. And that is at the State level. To try to get a national law, you are looking at tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, to get to a vote, and politics slowing things on top of that.

Selfish is what most Americans are about. We buy a big home, we buy fast cars, we get that GIANT TV set, we eat the best food, we wear nice clothes....... Yet few offer up even token effort to anyone else. I do a little, by way of charities, but even I keep 95% of what I earn for me and my family. It is not greed, but it is selfish.

EDIT: Apparently the Mom of the OP guy that died is seeking legislation. And a State legislator is seeking a new law.

In the wake of her son’s death, Staples is also advocating for more strict fireworks regulations in Maine. The state just recently legalized fireworks in 2012 after a ban of more than 60 years. Staples told the AP on Monday that regulations should be similar to those for firearms or driving cars.

“At least it’d be a little bit more than, ‘Here you go,’” she said. “That’s an explosive. They didn’t just hand me a license and put me in the car.”

Maine Rep. Michel Lajoie told the AP he’s considering trying to introduce a measure to restrict the use of fireworks, though he wonders if it will increase safety.

“They’re going to say, ‘Well, you can’t regulate stupidity’ … and it’s true, you can’t. But the fact of the matter is you have to try something,” Lajoie said. “I’m not giving up.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/07/friends-family-defend-maine-man-who-killed-himself-with-fireworks/

Edited August 24, 2015 by DieChecker

[aztek]

well let them pass a law making it illegal to shoot fireworks drunk of the top of the head. I have no problem with that,

[Anomalocaris]

I have nothing intelligent to contribute to this discussion, but anyway I'll leave this here XD

[+Hammerclaw]

We should ban circus stunts in air shows, too.

[Wickian]

I have nothing intelligent to contribute to this discussion, but anyway I'll leave this here XD

As fun as that looks, it's a really bad idea. It's unlikely, but roman candles are known to sometimes misfire and explode inside the barrel. I've seen it happen more than once in my life.

I see a lot of bad things happening if that happened in one of those arm cannons.

[Anomalocaris]

As fun as that looks, it's a really bad idea. It's unlikely, but roman candles are known to sometimes misfire and explode inside the barrel. I've seen it happen more than once in my life.

I see a lot of bad things happening if that happened in one of those arm cannons.

And how about this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIA-13epBk

[psyche101]

Did I say anything about owning cars or pools? No.

You said "alcohol related incidents" and those two are the most prominent discussed in the thread, if you have other specific intentions, then voice them, do not expect me to be psychic.

I responded to you turning a blind eye to proportioning over time (while accusing others of doing so).

75k+ alcohol related deaths a year (200+ a day) versus a handful in a day. I am not even mentioning the huge amount of injuries and billions of dollars of damages it causes.

When did I turn a blind eye to any of it? Can you quote that? I have answered each ignorant claim that tries to bury death statistics in other death statistics. It is strange how your culture sees that as very acceptable. It''s just a cop out, the two are completely unrelated.

Yes you did mention the injuries, you just didn't put a figure to it. Go right ahead, you are not making the argument you think you are, you are showing how to avoid facing direct responsibility by hiding behind bigger things.

And on that 1 day a year, alcohol is still more dangerous if you consider the amount of people using it versus incident rate compared to fireworks.

I realize it will never be banned because of hypocrisy and it is important to the economy, but how on earth can you say that laws regarding alcohol are effective?

What hypocrisy? Alcohol problems are a problem for everyone, and it would be great to seek an alternative, but that cannot happen without sending millin broke overnight, and making things ten times worse than they ever were!

"only" 75k deaths, yeah, that's not bad, let's call it effective..., but oh no, 4 deaths from fireworks? Let's ban it immediately, there's no other solution.

Yes it IS effective!! That is not an acceptable number, but it is moving in the right direction. Did you not understand the chart I left? Did you not read the links? IF it is not effective, why are deaths doping and an amazing rate, and why are 1.4 million in jail for alcohol related driving offences??? What do you call that?

And how do you come to the conclusion that the current system in place is static? It is a fluid conception of many professionals who watch these statistics and tweak laws to make them more effective - how is that not a direct measure to directly affect safety and improve it on a constant basis? Isn't that what you are claiming is not in place?

And you still are yet to explain to me how Alcohol is not regulated. I have shown you the measures, you seem to have issues, but cannot tell me what that fault is or why these measures are not measures, and why that link I gave you a few pages back stating a 40% reduction since new measures were introduced in 1982, and how each year contributes to a greater percentage every year.

How is a 40% decline in fatalities not an improvement, or proof against the measures are taking effect?

Do you not understand that fireworks were ALREADY banned? Do you not realise that the ban was lifted so cheap imports would make small local businesses flourish? Do you not realise you have been put in a position where you support child slave labour, AND were used by your Government to boost your economy at the expense of your own safety? Do you not realise that this ban works to the BENEFIT of citizens in every country that it is implemented in? Do you not realise you were used, and nobody at the top cares if you live or die, as long as the economy looks stable? Is that what you call liberty? Because I have another name for it.

[psyche101]

Earlier in the thread I provided plenty of stats showing how swimming pools are much more dangerous than fireworks.

You provided data, but refused to understand it, you did not show that swimming pools are MORE dangerous than fireworks, rather the opposite.

Everyone else seems to "get it" but you. You refuse to proportionate the incidents to truly reflect the statistic, Hopefully someone will be kind enough to take it and explain it to you in depth, I simply do not have the patience.

You commented that it was OK because there are regulations that require fences and people should be more responsible and not let children swim alone.

You mean regulations? Things you say do not exist?

Have you tried digging a pool and thumbing your nose at regulations yet? I am interested to see how far you get.

Also, the measures in place show a dramatic impact on drownings, we are working towards a solution, is that not what regulations do?

You skipped over the part about drunk people drowning in pools.

No I did not at all, what do you want to say on it? I asked you how you wish to enforce that for ponds, lakes and oceans as well which would only be a fair requirement, still waiting for your answer there.

I even provided a link to the recent drowning in a pool owned by Demi Moore.

And the autopsy has not been released, all we know is a dead man was found who could not swim, drowning is an assumption.

Pools are more dangerous than fireworks.

No, they are not by a long shot. You are again refusing to proportionate the fatalities by day. There are 365 days a year, and in many places a pool is in use for all of them. In one night 12,000 people are injured and up to a dozen die, try multiplying that one night by 365.

Actually, I am the poster boy for why they should NOT be banned. I have never had a fireworks accident. I use them according to their directions. I do not put them on my head.

Considering your grasp of statistics no you are not, but if you did the math I can see how you came to that conclusion!

[psyche101]

well, it is not regulation's intent to limit deaths, injuries, and loses, its intent is to give the state a reason (law) to punish you. i'd say regulatiosn are pretty effective, for what it was designed, we hold more people in jails than any other country, and lawyers and the systems makes lots of money.

Are you saying the law only has such regulations to jail people?

Surely I read that wrong!

[psyche101]

Sounds like you with pools and trampolines.

I cannot make myself any clearer. Your grasp of math seems to me to be the stumbling block, and that you seem to think the laws for pools do not apply to you. And I agreed with you on trampolines, and suggested you go to your local member and complain. If I can work out that a springfree can save injury, it cannot be that hard to figure out, I spent extra myself for the safety measures that are not in place. I suggest you promote springfree as the building standard to your local congressman.

Here you go - LINKto get you started with your proposal. If you require further assistance putting something together, do not hesitate to ask for help. I am sure the people at the link would be more than helpful with any further information you might require.

We already have such regulations underway, if you hurry, maybe you can catch up? In any case I am sure the draft will be of assistance to you if you are actually serious about feeling you require the legislation.

LINK - Draft - Regulation Impact Statement - Domestic Trampolines

Edited August 25, 2015 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I personally prefer the open ended solution but part of compromise is meeting in the middle. A licensing scheme similar to hunting, fishing, or boating will not eliminste 100% of injuries but injuries still occur in areas with bans in place.

You are correct, I do not think any scheme will ever be 100% effective given human nature. We can only do our best for those members of society that are willing to flex to accommodate the most amicable solution. But if people were willing to work together on these regulations, I am sure they would be much easier to satisfy a larger audience.

You misunderstand, currently 3rd world countries get those bags of staple foods from us. If our domestic social assistance were modeled the same way it would be considered barbaric.

Sorry, yes I did, I see what you are saying, but as relief is usually a hurried effort, we do not have much choice but to use such methods for the widest dispersion methods possible? Given moire time, I would assume those practices would be refined.

It does however remind me of my parents speaking of money collapses in WWII, when they used wheelbarrows of money to purchase a loaf of bread.

I agree and that is why I don't complain about the bloated military budget like a knot of others do. It costs to have the logistics our military can provide and while there is excessive spending I don't find it as over the top as some do.

It is clear that you are a cut above the average Joe and are no stranger to critical thinking. Being in the construction Industry, I am painfully aware of how much it costs to get projects of the ground and realise there are secrets I just have no business in. Could not agree with you more, there are times when the Government needs to be more transparent, but military budgets is not one of them. Simply put, few are qualified to so much as comment on that field.

[Myles]

Everyone else seems to "get it" but you.

You should pay attention to this thread. It is YOU who does not "get it".

You mean regulations? Things you say do not exist?

Have you tried digging a pool and thumbing your nose at regulations yet? I am interested to see how far you get.

You are fibbing again.

[Jarocal]

You are correct, I do not think any scheme will ever be 100% effective given human nature. We can only do our best for those members of society that are willing to flex to accommodate the most amicable solution. But if people were willing to work together on these regulations, I am sure they would be much easier to satisfy a larger audience.

I am not opposed to regulation as some is needed for a society to exist. My issue is in the majority of regulations that are prohibitive to liberties and which the founding father's of America would have considered a tyranny beyond that of the British empire. For instance food regulations requiring a seperate commercial kitchen so someone can legally sell jams, pickles, or sauerkraut. Such a little home based kitchen is not going to do enough volume to pose a serious to a community but the regulations make it prohibitively expensive for someone caught in a low wage job to do a home based business in order to better themselves. We have had children's lemonade stands shut down by local zoning officers or health department personnel for these regs. It is ludicrous and the main reason I oppose most added regulations to anything. In this particular case of fireworks, some regulations which still allow personal use would be an acceptable compromise.

Sorry, yes I did, I see what you are saying, but as relief is usually a hurried effort, we do not have much choice but to use such methods for the widest dispersion methods possible? Given moire time, I would assume those practices would be refined.

We'vs been dumping our cheap grains since WW2. The difference is Europe and Australia were smart enough to realize they needed a strong agricultural system and subsidised their own after WW2 to wean themselves off of large scale dependence of our crops. Less stable countries have not been as strategic and by their leaders having taken IMF funds they can barely pay back are unable to put the systems in place to develop their own competitive ag systems. Cuba after the USSR split is probably the best example of a poor country rapidly developing a comprehensive agricultural system on a shoestring budget and they would not have been able to if the U.S. political machine did not keep the embargo in place. The embargo prevented our ag products from being dumped there like they are in Africa and South America.

It does however remind me of my parents speaking of money collapses in WWII, when they used wheelbarrows of money to purchase a loaf of bread.

See above I put the quote tag too early...

It is clear that you are a cut above the average Joe and are no stranger to critical thinking. Being in the construction Industry, I am painfully aware of how much it costs to get projects of the ground and realise there are secrets I just have no business in. Could not agree with you more, there are times when the Government needs to be more transparent, but military budgets is not one of them. Simply put, few are qualified to so much as comment on that field.

No I am an average Joe with a public school education raised by people from the depression era who taught me not to rely on any but friends/family and that if I want something in life I can have it but there will be sacrifices(work) needed to get whatever it is I want. When I was 12 it was a color tv so I bought the first color tv to be in the house. Looking back now, I should have bought a log splitter and made work easier...

[Beefers]

Do you not realise you were used, and nobody at the top cares if you live or die, as long as the economy looks stable?

And that is exactly why alcohol is legal, tobacco is, and fireworks are too. Deal with it.

Money is everything in the US, if you have the money, you decide. That's why so many dangerous and harmful things are legal. Whether we like it or not.

Why treat them differently by banning one thing and merely regulating another? Every single death with fireworks is 1 too many in your eyes, but at what point is deathrate with alcohol at an acceptable level? Obviously you don't mind some deaths there, otherwise banning would be the only option, how many lives is the economy worth?

[Myles]

And that is exactly why alcohol is legal, tobacco is, and fireworks are too. Deal with it.

Money is everything in the US, if you have the money, you decide. That's why so many dangerous and harmful things are legal. Whether we like it or not.

Why treat them differently by banning one thing and merely regulating another? Every single death with fireworks is 1 too many in your eyes, but at what point is deathrate with alcohol at an acceptable level? Obviously you don't mind some deaths there, otherwise banning would be the only option, how many lives is the economy worth?

Add to this the fact that trampolines and swimming pools do not have a large affect on the economy.

[psyche101]

It might. And in many, many places such laws are already in effect. But going back to the OP, this fellow would be just as dead. His failure was a bad choice to pick up a dangerous firework. No law can prevent all stupid choices. Odds are if there was legislation proscribing the use of fireworks in the same vicinity as alcohol, that this guy would still be dead. Like I said back in July, the shear scale of offenders during the Fourth of July celebrations means there is no way to enforce such legislation on that day.

I do not understand, if Fireworks were to remain banned I do not see how he would be dead at all. The law was in place already, it was removed to boost local economy, it has nothing to do with "Freedoms" and "Liberties" that the loudmouths are clamouring on about - that is just another way of saying "I do not have an argument, so I will fall back on the constitution as nobody disagrees with that, and all hold it hallowed and sacred".

This strange worship of your constitution is an easy way to manipulate your culture.

I cannot agree with you on this one. Yes it could be enforced and easily, between suppliers and a policing system, it would be effective very quickly. The sheer number of offenders simply shows that most people are not responsible as people here claim to be the case.

Being callous isn't apathy, my friend. Callous simply means we understand that someone died and there isn't anything to do about it, and we move on. Sure, we can spend millions on a new law that will only save enough people to count on one hand, or we can put those millions toward stopping hundreds of deaths in some other cause. Fighting to save everyone is noble, but not cost effective when we still have tens of thousands of people dying in stupid car accidents, and apparently accidents involving pools.

You can do something about it, and millions doesn't have to be spent, a law has to be repealed at the next meeting, it's not a process that costs millions at all, and the ironic part is it was already in place, I would still like the see the Politician that made that ridiculous decision stand in court for al lthe damages caused since the ban was lifter, I feel he is responsible.

The advantage is obvious and significant, 12,000 less injuries, no more hundreds and thousand in fore damages, no more pollution and no more death, how would that significant saving not only offset, but make the ban cost, which I maintain would be negligible, a positively geared investment? The only people missing out would be the small businesses taking advantage of the huge profits to be made from investing in products constructed by child slave labour.

Like I said, it is possible that someone will pick up this cause and champion it so that a law is re-instated, or a new law drafted, but given no one seems to feel as deeply as you do, not even the fellows family, that it simply will not happen. Laws don't write themselves, and even a politicians time is valuable enough that it would cost millions to get just a common sense law passed. And that is at the State level. To try to get a national law, you are looking at tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, to get to a vote, and politics slowing things on top of that.

The laws are already written, they just need to e reinstated. See above, the costs saved from emergency services and damages are going to make it a positively geared investment, even though I do feel you are exaggerating about the law there, and looking at extremes, passing a law is like buying a car, you can buy an old second hander, or a Bugatti Veyron. It can be a little or a freaking fortune. For instance - if you wanted to pass a law that requires one less piece of information from a person that is wanting to open a limited partnership - if there is no opposition to this bill, then it should pass and will cost very little, however, if you want a law requiring illegal immigrant mothers on medicare to abort their babies, and all of a sudden you have a great deal more issues moral and opinions to satisfy what with political action committees, lobbyists, etc, etc, etc, with which the cost will rise proportionally.

Selfish is what most Americans are about. We buy a big home, we buy fast cars, we get that GIANT TV set, we eat the best food, we wear nice clothes....... Yet few offer up even token effort to anyone else. I do a little, by way of charities, but even I keep 95% of what I earn for me and my family. It is not greed, but it is selfish.

Mate, I do not get it, I have a big telly, I have a residential home on just over 4,000 sq M. Same same same - I give what I can to charity, and prefer physical involvement. We do our bit, but that is where this should slam home even harder. We have these things because of a society, other people needing other things we provide, what you are doing seems to be cutting your nose off to spite your faces?? We have neighbours, we have communities, we should be looking after each other, but all I hear in this thread is what you say - ME ME ME, that is not something worth fighting for IMHO. Why would I fight for your rights when you do not give a stuff about mine? I do not get people being proud of being selfish, it's not a good thing mate.

EDIT: Apparently the Mom of the OP guy that died is seeking legislation. And a State legislator is seeking a new law.

http://www.washingto...with-fireworks/

LOL - MAN!!! That is what the thread is about!!

Son Died By Lighting Fireworks On His Head

Now She Wants Stricter Laws

My first post wished her well in her endeavours, that is how this all started!! People started bleating on about"Liberty" when this is really has nothing to do with that false catch cry!! It's about making money from citizens at the expense of their safety through child slave labour.

I suppose Child Slave Labour is just another thing one turns a blind eye to out of greed?

[psyche101]

You should pay attention to this thread. It is YOU who does not "get it".

You got even your insult wrong Myles, mate, you are really out of your depth here.

I do not "get" the selfish attitude of want over safety.

I do not "get" why you think regulations that have been listed time and time again do not exist or apply.

Everybody does "get" the math laid out outlining proportion but you.

You are fibbing again.

Is that why you keep saying so, but cannot actually post where I have done so even after asking you to do so? And is that why you do not actually have an argument? Going around this circle again are we Mysles? You blabber on about pools and trampolines, I again post the EXISTING laws rules, regulations and legislation, you call me a liar for a few pages until you forget the trampoline and pool arguments, and then you start on them all over again, completely ignoring the listed rules regulations and legislation, making me list them again, so you can go quietly until you crack on with your non debate again.

If you had a reason you would use it, you simply do not, and do not wish to acknowledge that the facts and figures do indeed show that many people are not responsible with fireworks, and the ban should never have been lifted. Your strawman of "people die doing other stuff so people can die doing stuff I like" Is just a barbaric expression of selfishness, it is not an argument, and certainly not a reason to turn a blind eye to safety, damage and excessive usage of emergency services all to support child slave labour. If anything, you ought to be ashamed to be lobbying for Fireworks now that all the horrid aspects associated with Fireworks have been exposed and listed. Ridiculous f you to ignore all that, and then rob an industry of growth to top it all off.

[F3SS]

About every hundred comments I come back and have yet to see one mind change.

[Myles]

You got even your insult wrong Myles, mate, you are really out of your depth here.

I do not "get" the selfish attitude of want over safety.

I do not "get" why you think regulations that have been listed time and time again do not exist or apply.

Everybody does "get" the math laid out outlining proportion but you.

Is that why you keep saying so, but cannot actually post where I have done so even after asking you to do so? And is that why you do not actually have an argument? Going around this circle again are we Mysles? You blabber on about pools and trampolines, I again post the EXISTING laws rules, regulations and legislation, you call me a liar for a few pages until you forget the trampoline and pool arguments, and then you start on them all over again, completely ignoring the listed rules regulations and legislation, making me list them again, so you can go quietly until you crack on with your non debate again.

Why do you refuse to explain why "laws, rules, regulations and legislation" is fine for pools but not fireworks. More deaths in pools. Please don't say the regulations work for pools. The large amount of deaths each year disprove that. Banning home owned pools would save more lives than banning fireworks. It would also open a whole new industry of public pools.

I bring this stuff up to show how you pick and choose what you are passionate about. Your argument against fireworks could very easily be transferred to pools. But you are steadfast on the opposite side on that one.