On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:19:51 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:
Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?
Ooookay... if you're listening -- the 'they' is the power mongers
(mostly, but not all democrats) in government who truly want to remove
all 'power' from all citizens, including the use of dangerous materials
or the pursuit of dangerous activities, even when those only endanger the
participants.
And no, I'm not 'anti government'. It serves many good, necessary
purposes. It's not just our government, either; governments have
inevitably devolved into controlling forms that use public doles and
restrictive regulations to turn their citizens into drones.
But, to the point: The amateur pyros know that any criminal use of
explosives by any person, regardless of motive, will cause these same
power mongers to _attempt_ to further restrict their access to and use of
the materials to make their fireworks. They've already restricted a
number of ordinary, essentially harmless chemicals used almost
exclusively by pyros because they MIGHT be used to make illegal
explosives. (no, I'm not talking about ammonium nitrate, which is not
used in pyrotechnics).
They'll also attempt to restrict their firing of the fireworks (which is
done mostly at licensed shoot sites, during organized fireworks
festivals).
The government has already sought to further restrict amateurs by putting
their suppliers out of business, and without any provocation, but just
because the (now prior) BATFE safety director had "an agenda".
The safety director of BATFE declared in public (in a fireworks
symposium, no less) that her personal goal was to have all fireworks
outlawed everywhere in the US. She was a young, minority, power-hungry
feminist who eventually got thrown out of power, but she set a lot of
things in motion that have yet to have their full effects on the
industry.
And Ed... the amateurs do no harm. They don't even compete with, but
rather contribute to, the professional trade.
Except for the same rare 'fringe element' you'll find in any activity,
they all follow the rules and stringent safety protocols, use care AND
good judgement, and care very much what the communities around them think
of their activities. Most of the guilds will, indeed, censure and
_report_ members whom they find doing illegal things.
So, any time the government gets involved, the amateur fireworkers
rightly fear that their ability to ply their craft will be restricted
further.
LLoyd
'Sorry this is taking me so long, but I'm really busy. So I'll keep
this as short as I can.
I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Your post
and some from Richard made me realize I'd better clarify my thinking
about these things, and you both helped. I think we can narrow down
the points of agreement and disagreement with a little taxonomic
analysis. d8-) This is what I've thought about.
We have four basic situations we discuss, and we get into arguments
partly because we tangle them up indiscriminantly:
1) Activites that involve a risk only to the participant (solo
mountain climbing; most skydiving)
2) Activities that involve a risk to the participant and to others who
are participating with him (car racing; setting up fireworks)
3) Activities that involve a risk to the participant and to others who
are not participating, who may even be unaware that the activity is
going on (people into whose homes cars crash; people on the unlucky
end of stray bullets
, or who are aware of the activity but have no
reason to believe they're at risk, as in this famous tragedy:
http://www.ewilkins.com/wilko/lemans.htm
4) Activities that may not involve a risk in themselves, but which
require the means by which other risks are created. In the cases we
discuss here, involving guns and explosives, it is those objects that
create most of the controversy.
This one requires more thinking to categorize. I could include a fifth
category, in which *some* people pose a risk to others without knowing
about it: new hunters who don't think or know about safe carrying of
guns in groups, or who aren't trained to be acutely aware of their
backstops. It could be part of 2 and 3.
We impose regulations to try to alleviate these risks as much as
possible. For example, requiring hunter-safety training to get a
license.
Without getting into the breakdowns of category 4, it doesn't sound
like there is much training requirement on amateur pyros.
You're aware of the huge number of fireworks injuries, no doubt:
http://tinyurl.com/csgcfcg
....and the full detail:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/os.fireworks.pdf
Of course, most of those are fools with fireworks, not serious amateur
pyrotechnicians. But the problem is real, and huge.
It's in the category of things any civilized society, one with a
respect for human life, would try to regulate, in an attempt to reduce
injuries. Furthermore, concerning the issue that prompted this thread,
there is the danger than the means of producing fireworks and to
handload ammunition also provides the means for bombers to conduct
mass murders.
These are tough issues and they are not ones that sensibly can be
polarized to the extremes. Rarely do we have to ban things to make
them tolerably safe; the ATF agent you mentioned was over the top, and
deserved to be kicked down. On the other hand, if someone pops off
with a claim that they're not the problem, when they ARE the problem
in the sense that the means for their toys/hobby/vocation necessarily
require that any mass murderer or bomber can easily obtain the means
to carry out his terror, they, too, deserve to be kicked to the
bottom. Human lives trump hobbies, no matter how much these "amateurs"
contribute to the professional side of pyrotechnics.
I'm not proposing any simple solutions. All I'm trying to do is to get
a stronger grip on the types of problems we're dealing with.
Thanks again. I'll try to think about this some more.
--
Ed Huntress