Boston Bomb triggered by cell phone?

That's not a healthy society, Lloyd. That's a confederacy of suckers.

After people are dead?

Right. So let's allow drinking and driving. There are some people who can get away with it -- for a while. And killing someone with your car gives you a great incentive to learn about rhe responsibility that comes with freedom of choice, eh?

That's why we have regulations -- because there are a lot of assholes out there. If they get burned or blow their own nose off, that's a good lesson. If they kill or injure someone else, that's a really bad lesson.

It's a matter of safety and sense, Lloyd. Lots of people have no sense of the first and none of the latter.

That's what YOU "miss." You're throwing all of these "incentives" into the same pot, and don't distinguish between learning something the hard way at your own expense, and learning the hard way at someone else's expense.

Horseshit, with all due respect. I've seen the result that dull-witted scumbags can produce. I know a family that was destroyed by a drunk driver. It could have been some asshole in his garage with a pile of explosives.

You appear to live in a "perfect world" yourself, Lloyd, where innocent people don't die because of the dimwits. Based on what you're writing, it's an imaginary world of abstractions.

You can't make generalizations about these things. You have to think of the specific consequences of these "freedoms." Of course, most people will say "we aren't talking about drunk driving." But of course you are. Unless and until you distinguish between the nonsense idea that we'd all be better off if people "learned" to consider their actions from experience, and the saner idea that some experiences are things we can't let happen by default, there is nothing here except a lot of hot air.

Your freedom of choice ends at my nose.

If you're start "protecting yourself against the govenment" with some means of "protecting yourself against the government," please let me know first, so I can be out of range.

It sounds like solipsistic nonsense to me. There's a real world out there, beyond the perfect system of self-regulation that you seem to imagine.

The irony here is that I'm as opposed to foolish regulations as anyone you know. Then I read the posts here, and find that there is an equally foolish opposite: the fairy-tale notion that everything would be just fine if we got the govenment out of everything, and let us all learn about responsibility on our own.

Fine. But what do you do about the dead and injured?

Yeah, that's true. The only way to know what IS the norm is through good, scientific studies. Having a background in survey methodology, including a lot of practice, I can read surveys with a degree of understanding that satisfies me about what the "norms" are. I don't expect some people to agree, because most people haven't done it.

Well, I have a source. My closest friend in college migrated there from Michigan, and his wife, whom I've known for 45 years, was born there. I talk to them a lot -- they know what I think is crazy. And I know their kids. I get special reports. d8-)

I forget what we're supposed to ask about. I've read too many posts today.

Hey, you have to take personal responsibility for your actions. Pay attention to the incentives. d8-)

So get yourself a bus. d8-)

Shrug..brain fart. Guy was my mentor and reloading instructor when I first got started.

I guess he thought it was "fun and safe" to burn off the old powder. But...a big cloud of Bullseye was outside of his experience.

RIP Joe Moran.

Gunner

Well reasoned!

Gunner

I've been hit square on by a skier while I was on a heelside traverse, no lasting injuries.

I agree that these amateur pyros should not be working with enough explosive to affect nearby properties. Also, fireworks factories should not be in residential areas.

"ATP" fired this volley in news:51733c48$0$25633$ snipped-for-privacy@cv.net:

And for what it's worth, the ATF law covers all that. It requires even unlicensed practicioners to obey all the regulations concerning, quantities, distances to dwellings and roads, magazine storage, etc.

Out of ignorance, Ed assumes that amateur pyros and people who just like to make boomers are one in the same.

Amateurs are organized: There are numerous state guilds, and an international guild. It costs time and money to participate, and the training regimens are rigorous.

And yes, amateur pyrotechnicians have accidents (so do pros). In the case of amateurs' accidents, only in a tiny handful of cases have other 'innocents' been involved even as slightly as minor property damage.

LLoyd

A problem is that this discussion is based on Lloyd's non-specific objection to certain intrusions on "freedom." He had something in mind when he said it; I reacted with the idea I had in my own mind about what it meant.

There's a good chance that we were talking about entirely different things. I should have asked about the specific intrusions he was talking about.

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."?

Nope, and he and his Obamunists don't care to.

Precisely. But try to get that through progressives' skulls. Ditto gun owners are not terrorists or snipers...unless pushed too far.

And what, exactly, do you know about "amateur pyrotechnicians" being "the source of MOST of the new effects and techniques used in the professional trade," Larry? I don't recall you ever expressing an involvement with the subject before, least of all the origins of "new techniques in the professional trade."

Do you really know what you're talking about, or, if you'll forgive the pun, are you just blowing smoke? d8-)

The question is what kind of "happiness" he's talking about. I'll keep an open mind, but I'm wary until I hear the specifics.

Ed Huntress fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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

Richard fired this volley in news:Z4qdnb0KQcl-

"He who hath once smelt the smoke shall ne'er again be free!"

LLoyd

Were you an amateur pyrotechnician, or a computer technician who created something for pyrotechnicians?

There's no presumption there. It's a serious question. It's not a field that I know anything about, but "amateur pyrotechnician" implies, to me, someone who's working with the explosives and propellants themselves. Is that a fair distinction?

Ed Huntress fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'm not answering for Richard, but you should know that the craft attracts many professionals from highly technical trades, because it can be as technical as one wishes. Physicians, engineers, research chemists, and lawyers are just as commonly found arm-deep in star compositions as are less technically-inclined folks.

LLoyd

FWIW, I don't care if you're a danger to yourself. You're an adult; you work out your own risk-reward ratios.

I do get involved when someone pursues a hobby or a craft that creates a danger for others who have not chosen to take risks for your sake. I'll have more to say about this in my post to Lloyd. I'm glad he started this discussion, because it's helped me to clear up something that's at the root of a lot of the related issues we talk about here.

About losing your pilot's license: I'm sorry for you, and I'm sympathetic. In three month's time in 1973 I lost my pilot's license, my SCCA driver's license, and a berth on a sailboat for the Southern Ocean Racing Conference. We can talk about it some time. I was devastated by it; it turned my life upside down.

So I understand your frustration with that.

I'm sure that it does. But I'm also sure that you realize your comment about losing "freedoms," in the context of the Boston bombings and the ensuing discussion about explosives, suggests that you were talking about direct involvement with explosives. In fact, your last post suggests the same thing.

I'll reply to that one, which I appreciate your taking the time to explain. Right now I have to run off. I'll be back at it.