You're right but in my experience in Washington state - Park rangers, forest fire marshals, and reservation police will all rigorously enforce the bans in places that are prone to wild fires. The local community won't have much sympathy either. People get how dumb that is. You also see bans enforced in very well off communities that basically have their own police force too. It's fascinating how these micro-cultures all self-regulate.

Can only speak to my experience here in Washington, but 40 years ago you still needed to go to the reservation for the fun stuff. Even basic small firecrackers were outlawed in my county.

> Even the nominal enforcers don’t believe in it. No one is motivated to actually enforce it.

Case in point, the ATC on this very flight said something along the lines of "Thanks for the report, I'll pass it on, but I doubt they'll be able to do something about it"...

Do you know where they are legal/illegal? Multiple places I know of have legalized them.

Imagine thinking you are saying something positive about American “culture” with your comment. Wow. You would have sounded more true to it by just writing “MMMURICA, AMIRIGHT!?!?”

Depends on the state.

They're legal to buy like an hour out of the city unfortunately

Also the 2A wingnuts think banning fireworks is akin to gun control https://www.tully-weiss.com/blog/fireworks-and-the-second-am...

Most dogs in my neighborhood are ok with them. My own dog loves them. I try to keep him inside only because I think it might be bad for his hearing if he gets too close. Beyond basic temperament I wonder if owner training is implicated, as more people become annoyed by fireworks they don’t expose the dog to them at a young age.

My guess because we just read of the seizure stories online but 95% of dogs are ok with it. Mine is. There's a limit to dealing with edge cases that most people have.

Not saying this is how I feel or act though.

Not just dogs; more than a few humans don’t cope with loud noises of various kinds.

I’m not a dog owner but aren’t you supposed to play fireworks on your TV at increasing volume in the preceding days to get them used to it?

That seems a better option than expecting everyone else to change their behaviour because of a pet you chose.

The degradation of canine genetics and behavior to the point where loud noises cause seizures is pretty absurd. I love dogs but I grew up around working dogs. City people have pushed dog breeding to the point where the desirable dog is riddled with some pretty extreme codependency and anxiety that they mistake for affection and companionship. The poor animals spending their lives in a few hundred square feet and completely alone for a large majority of their lives kinda sickens me.

Like 80% of dog owners treat dogs like possessions. When I say "like possessions" I mean they abuse them by physical means or by locking them into small apartments and not meeting the animals basic needs. It's wild how people trap dogs into small city/suburb boxes and then 'train' them to be good(break them). I stand by 80% if you account for global numbers and not just western/developed nations.

In much of the developed world it's weirdly mandatory to have a dog or cat. The way folks treat them is so messed up. Then these folks turn around and claim they love animals. It's nonsense. Most people don't need a pet nor do they treat them like an animal lover would.

But words have no meaning nowadays. Everyone is everything they want to be.

There have also been incidents of people being hit by those bullets. It’s just so reckless and dangerous for people to do that. But there’s always someone doing it …

We'll see if we ever get something like that in Spain. I guess not, fireworks are just too deep in the culture here.

Denmark too. Aarhus looks like a war zone from the smoke on new years.

In a lot of states, Indian reservations can also sell them. And they’re basically completely unregulated. It’s illegal to bring them or set them off into other towns but people do it. Hundreds of people. And tens of thousands have to be repeatedly woken up because of their selfishness.

When I was a kid you could get actual m80's that were like a quarter stick of dynamite. Now you can only get little firecrackers that don't even blow up little green army men.

It's really dependent on your state laws. My state allows fireworks, so you can get most things but they are very limited in size and explosive content.

What it amounts to is that most cities/counties don't enforce their existing laws in this area because people would have a shit fit, and they would arrest so many people that it's kind of impossible.

Something something banning things doesn't really work to do anything but make criminals out of every day people.

> Today I could get everything for a near-professional show if I wanted to spend the money.

Not unless you're purchasing on the black market or (illegally) manufacturing it yourself.† The professional stuff is substantially larger than anything sold on the consumer market.

† Which is surprisingly trivial to do BTW but please be extremely cautious and very thoroughly master the underlying theory if you decide to go that route.

When I was a kid growing up in Iowa in the 90s, my friends and I would hold Roman candles and bottle rockets in our hands and try to shoot them at each other. We're lucky we didn't get seriously injured, but it was all fun and games back then as long as you didn't tell your parents.

Did you move? There are huge differences between states in what’s available, all the way from “just sparklers and other tiny stuff that doesn’t fly” up to “anything that doesn’t require an explosives license”, and within states areas near cities often restrict fireworks sales.

Capitalism. Get rich or die trying.

The root problem is drunk people lighting off a bunch of rocket-propelled explosives, actually. Even if the houses were fireproof concrete bunkers, they'd still be starting wildfires in the grass/brush/trees. (And of course, it's more than "a few dollars.")

> Why do we permit such fire prone housing to be built just to save a few dollars.

I know you didn’t mean it, but this question isn’t a question. It’s a statement formed as a question. It’s a judgement. It’s not a curiosity legitimately asking why.

There are so many good reasons why houses in the US are built the way they are. Some of which are…

1. Concrete/Brick houses retain heat and are often harder to cool. They also don’t insulate well. US Houses have been built as a means of controlling moisture, humidity, and cooling efficiently.

2. Stick built houses cost less to repair. Brick/Concrete houses require much more demolition to repair, rebuild, or change. While replacing a load bearing wall in a stick house can be done easily, concrete and brick require the entire wall to be torn down.

3. Humidity, Moisture, and Wind matter. When moisture gets into concrete and brick then freezes it can cause huge structural cracks. Whereas in stick houses, it’s not as big a deal. I had a house with a raised driveway and a walkout basement. The basement and driveway had to be completely demolished due to moisture cracks. If the entire house was concrete it would have been a write off.

4. Soil composition matters. In some areas the soil is not capable of holding the weight of all the concrete and brick. Causing structure issues later and endangering folks.

Modern building codes today in most places are pretty solid. They require 2x6 framing, they require testing of the airways in the house to ensure proper air leaking/sealing. They require the structure of the house be built with specific bolts. They require the framing to be done in a way that resists wind sheer and twisting.

The US Building codes have been revised consistently over time. This started with the nuclear bomb testing in the 40s and onward. They built houses, and then bombed them to find out how to make them better. We’ve learned from Tornados, Hurricanes, and more. These all have resulted in major improvements to building houses.

Today in the US we have no shortage of housing methods. We have SIP Framing, ICF Concrete Framing, Recycled ICF, Modular designs, etc. Most still go with stick built because it’s the better option for the majority.

I lived in a 2x4 house in TN that was built poorly and improperly. I spent 200k in 4 years repairing that house. Now I live in a 2x6 built slab house. This house was built by a luxury builder properly.

The difference between the two is astonishing. The TN House couldn’t go less than 82 degrees when it was hot and humid. The luxury house is in Vegas, it can be 50 degrees inside when it’s 120 outside. You can cut costs on stick built, but you can also make some of the best houses with it.

What alternative do you propose?

That's what I know them as too. We used to go out to a family friend's farm for a fireworks show he'd put on every 4th, and he'd always have a bunch of those interspersed. They used to be my favorite growing up, because of the anticipation between when it launched and when it would explode.

Given the sheer quantity of energy that's already being continuously released in an engine would a small firework actually pose more danger than a bird? There's no bones in a firework after all.

99% of them also don’t have enough explosive force to do more than damage a hand.

Not true. I support anyone doing anything that is harmful to themselves. I don't support doing things that are harmful to others.

You are above the laws if you have the money. Wonderful teaching for your kids. The world knows where that is leading.

> How would you feel if your house burned down because your neighbor did something stupid?

Probably the same way I'd feel if it burned down because my neighbor did some other stupid thing, like drive into it with a truck or try stealing electricity. There would be many feelings probably, but none of them would be "trucks/DIY should be illegal".

You are arguing against a straw man. It was never claimed or even implied that society can't or shouldn't regulate activities that cause harm. The cost benefit tradeoff in this specific instance was called into question and the broader implications of a consistent application of the same bar across all of society was inquired about.

> you’re essentially saying that people should be free to play around with explosive devices in dense city neighborhoods. Fuck no, it’s fucking concerning to have an explosion rattle your windows.

This is nothing more than emotional grandstanding. You could construct similar rants against a canister of gas or bottle of starter fluid. Obviously how you use the thing is important.

Lest you miss my point or think I miss the mark there are video footage of clueless people nearly killing themselves and others through entirely avoidable mishaps with gasoline abound.

The question is the amount of knowledge and judgment required, the likelihood of mishap, and the size of the consequences when one inevitably happens. Regulation needs to balance these things against utility and personal freedom.

> Like no, it’s totally not cool to give a free pass to people who are putting other people’s lives and homes at risk. How would you feel if your house burned down because your neighbor did something stupid?

We quite literally have a long and rich tradition of laws to handle exactly this.

>How would you feel if your house burned down because your neighbor did something stupid?

Burning your neighbors house down is already illegal. You and they should already have insurance. House fires in human dwellings have been a risk since we started building houses next to other houses.

The issue is that we (and I mean worldwide) have gone from legalism as a method of settling disputes and advertising penalties for destructive behavior, to outlawing risk entirely.

The crux of the matter is that no one stops to point out where the line is. Laws will come in to penalise low probability risks, people make these arguments "wont someone think of the children" and then lawmakers turn on to even lower probability risks.

If you had even a benchmark, "more probable than x is outlawed" people would be more understanding. And its not a slippery slope argument, because the slope seems to be the point and without a line the destination appears to be all possible risk.

Right.

On the evening of July 4, fine.

Setting off firecrackers in urban areas otherwise is simply antisocial behaviour and should be treated as such.

Died of what?

25,000 people die in my state every year, 10 in a day would be miraculously low.

MK was the most controversial, but Midway was also the US manufacturer of Space Invaders and Pac-Man.

Now I wonder who invented wheat, or sugar (used to make cake)?

Also hotdogs are made with Wiener sausages, which are from...

No more using the English language, either.

Yes, because what I was doing was objectively dangerous. Dueling used to be a commonly accepted practice, yes even killing - pity that ladder was pulled up! What about the children's chemistry sets that included uranium, mercury, and cyanide?

Fireworks for me, but not for thee.

And hence why lots of people don’t want to live in dense cities, and then we end up with NIMBYs who want strict housing codes so they don’t have to live near people who set off fireworks.

Living in a city shouldn’t have to mean tolerating lawlessness.

Unfortunately it's not just dense cities, and all it takes is 1 neighbor to ruin your night.

My city did not have these issues. Population changes and cultural changes have brought in a large enough number of anti social people that then make things bad for everyone else. It’s not about being in a city, but the fact that a small number of selfish people think they have a right to disrupt everyone else.

I chose to live in a city with laws. The ones who are in the wrong place are the ones who don’t want to follow those laws.