44 Comments:

I like fireworks...

I imagine people would still be able to wake you up at 3:30 without the aid of fireworks...

By  Anonymous, at 12:49 pm, November 16, 2005  

if by people you mean my cat- then yes he can still wake me up without fireworks.

Of course they can- but would they....

By  Anita, at 1:55 pm, November 16, 2005  

I too like fireworks

The arguements used agains fireworks could be used to ban knives, hammers even cars.

People being reckless with something is not the somethings fault. it is the reckless person.

why don't we just ban them!

By  Jonathan, at 2:56 pm, November 16, 2005  

Yeah i like fireworks too... and i dont think the general public who use fireworks responsibly should have to pay the price for not being able to buy them when its the minority that are misusing them...

besides, the 'ban fireworks! ban fireworks!' thing comes up every year...interesting that it hasnt eventuated into any bill being passed (as yet).

By  Priscilla, at 8:04 pm, November 16, 2005  

Ban fireworks that sound like hand grenades.

At least twice I was kept awake or woken up bu those really loud ones. Our neighbors (several of them) decided that 11pm-12pm would be nice to blow up a chunk of NZ.

While the radio worked to sooth my cat's nerves, my lack of sleep wasn't very beneficial. The grumpy mood thereafter wasn't too great either.

Fireworks in themselves are ok. But I think they should have noise limits just like stock cars and exhausts. Start with $500 fines for noise after 10pm?

By  Anonymous, at 11:06 pm, November 16, 2005  

Not quite sure about that argument Jono. Knives and hammers are useful outside one day a year. Eg builders use hammers to build houses. Fireworks are only used to provide enjoyment to people one day/week a year. They have no other useful purpose. I think we have to weigh up the enjoyment factor vs the harm factor. I am not entirely comfortable saying enjoyment comes before safety.

By  Anita, at 8:53 am, November 17, 2005  

Fireworks do have use outside of one day a year. I've let off fireworks at the New Year and at birthdays. I can see what you're getting at about enjoyment vs. safety. But in my personal experience I've had many many many good times with fireworks it's something I look forward to. So the enjoyment factor for me is very high. vs safety. This one time a firework fired out the side and hit scott and burnt a hole in his jumper. One faulty firework in 23 years. I would very happily say that the enjoyment factor outweighs the safety factor. As I said before. If other people are being unsafe and stupid with fireworks. That's not my fault... why should I be punished for them?

We don't ban cars because of drunk drivers. If you weigh up Convieniece vs Safety in regard to motor vehicles... Is me being able to get to work in 5 mins rather than 30mins really worth 425 peoples lives each year?

By  Jonathan, at 9:33 am, November 17, 2005  

again Jono I really don't think you can use the car/hammer/knife argument. They serve other purposes than just pure enjoyment. The impact of banned cars would be huge - the impact of banning fireworks would be stink (for some) but wouldn't bring the country to a halt.

You are assume that all accidents that happen with fireworks are because people are stupid. It might have nothing to do with being stupid but may simply be an accident.

You personally can say that the enjoyment factor outweighs the safety factor. You might feel differently if Scott had been seriously hurt. We can't just think of ourselves but also about the people who have pets hurt, houses burn down and the fire fighters that risk their lives to spend hours putting out bush fires.

By  Anita, at 10:10 am, November 17, 2005  

I wasn't saying what I was saying becasue I think cars should be banned. I was trying to illustrate the point that it is people that are the problem not the item itself. Sure there may be some unavoidable car accidents, but in general, a car will only crash because of the driver, not the car itself. So it's not car's that kill 425 people each year but it is the drivers.

I believe that if people are sensible with fireworks they are safe. like I said before. I've never been anywhere where a fire has occured due to fireworks. All the stories I hear are where people don't take the correct precautions before lighting their fireworks. If everyone was lighting the fireworks and using common sence there would only be the odd incident ie Scotts Jumper, that happen due to faulty fireworks.

In your example of being woken at 3am... The firework didn't just go off by itself did it? it was a person who was using poor judgement. 3am is not a suitable time to set of fireworks... but that's not the fireworks fault

By  Jonathan, at 12:40 pm, November 17, 2005  

Yes but the point is- would they have done it if they didn't have access to fireworks?

But Jono- people aren't sensible and therefore fireworks are not safe. But it is difficult to classify a stick filled with gunpowder and set alight around children, houses and pets as safe.

You are right it is a people issue- that is why they should be banned cause people can't be responsible and sometime accidents happen. There is no really good reason to keep them around is that they provide people with enjoyment. Well so do drugs but they are banned cause they are harmful and cause social problems. It is kind of an extreme example but same kinda idea- drugs are fun (?) but the harm far outweighs the pleasure.

By  Anita, at 1:22 pm, November 17, 2005  

What is concerning to me is the idea that seems to be going around at the moment which for the purposes of this post I'll call the 'barrier effect'. Someone throws a brick onto the motorway so what happens.... lets put big fences on the bridges. People get involved in illegal drag racing.... lets legislate against it. Someone is reckless with fireworks.... lets ban fireworks.

We've become health and safety pharisee's!! And in our efforts we're missing the point.

You can't legislate good behaviour!

Have the boy racer laws actually worked? I would suggest not! Like Nato said. The person who woke you at 3am will find other ways to wake you up fireworks ban or no fireworks ban. They'll crank up their stereo... or smash windows on your car.

We don't need more legistation... people need Christ.

By  Jonathan, at 2:28 pm, November 17, 2005  

Interesting. Is there something wrong with putting up fences to protect people or legislating against illegal drag racing (hello- it is illegal)?

The government isn't going to lead people to Christ- that is the churches job. Why on earth would you expect the government to go 'Mmm I think people need Christ'? In the meantime the government does what it does. There is nothing in God's word that says it is wrong to put up a fence or ban fireworks.

There is a huge difference between smashing up a car (which is illegal) and playing a stupid prank. Booming their stereo- maybe but I doubt it.

By  Anita, at 3:43 pm, November 17, 2005  

Hmmm....
I do have more to say in responce to your comment but feel we're not really getting anywhere!

If you're happy with your freedoms constantly being eroded for the sake of a few people who are being reckless and stupid then it would seem that we're not going to agree on this one.

By  Jonathan, at 4:15 pm, November 17, 2005  

Well no - I think we have gotta to the heart of the problem which is legislation VS freedom. Which is a very interesting subject I think.

I don't free my freedom is being eroded. And if it was I would have to think about whether or not it was worth it for the safety of a few people. And maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

By  Anita, at 4:43 pm, November 17, 2005  

But if you ban something then freedom is eroded?

By  Jonathan, at 5:30 pm, November 17, 2005  

Yes of course it is eroded. But the real question is whether it is a bad thing. God bans us from doing certain things and our freedom to sin is eroded but is it really bad? No it is a good thing cause it protects us from the consequences of that sin.

By  Anita, at 9:01 am, November 18, 2005  

Anita: j/w if you actually are wanting fireworks to be banned altogether OR would prefer it if they only allowed fireworks at big events such as Christmas in the Park, Symphony under the Stars like what they've done in Australia?

If the latter, then that is no more safer than lettin them off in the privacy of your own home b/c huge numbers of people generally go to those events and if, like has been mentioned there is a faulty firework, it would have the potential to hurt a far larger number of people.

By  Priscilla, at 9:58 am, November 18, 2005  

Mr and Mrs Joe Public are not trained professionals whose job it is to let off fireworks. I doubt very much the the stats on the number of people hurt or killed in public displays would be equal to those hurt by home fireworks- in NZ anyway.

By  Anita, at 11:20 am, November 18, 2005  

yes but u didnt answer the question. fireworks only at big public events or no fireworks altogether?

By  Priscilla, at 11:28 am, November 18, 2005  

I share the same opinion as the Fire Service- public displays only.

By  Anita, at 12:06 pm, November 18, 2005  

yeah so pretty much as i said before... You're happy with your freedoms being eroded for the sake of a few people who are being reckless and stupid. I am not.

We're not going to agree.

By  Jonathan, at 3:45 pm, November 18, 2005  

I am happy with my freedoms being eroded for the sake of a few people being safer and less likely to get hurt. There is a positive side to it remember?

Why are we so concerned with freedoms- is this a biblical concept? What about putting others needs before your own? Why would we trade a couple moments of 'oooo pretty fireworks' for someones home/life/wellbeing?

By  Anita, at 3:50 pm, November 18, 2005  

In fact I am pretty sure it isn't a biblical concept. Christ has his freedom in heaven eroded to the point of having to dwell on earth and endure an ugly death cause we were reckless and stupid. Is there a point were we say to people 'No I won't give anymore of my freedom/enjoyment/pleasure for your good'.

I am a bit nervous about using this verse for fear of getting slammed but Phillipians 2:4 says "each of you should look not only to your own interests, but to the interests on others' I feel that it should relate to our attitude to all people not just our Christain brothers.

By  Anita, at 4:03 pm, November 18, 2005  

Well this is not related to fireworks at all, but freedom is a biblical concept...b/c we have freedom in Christ. here is just one verse that says that:

"If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set your free."
John 8:31-32

By  Priscilla, at 12:43 pm, November 19, 2005  

We are going round in circles.

Banning fireworks is not going to make everyone safe!

Christ did have his freedom resticted. He took the form of a man. This was for a specific purpose. To save us from our sins.

Banning fireworks is not comparable to this.

I haven't read that Christ was lobbying for the banning of Crucifiction and that tradition was a tad more fatal than the tradition of Guy Fawlkes, a day where we remember the foiled plot to assasinate the King and Parliament.

By  Jonathan, at 10:50 pm, November 19, 2005  

In theory, we shouldn't have to ban any actual thing.
Guns, cigarettes, drugs, speeding, fireworks, alcohol, sex, etc. should not be banned.

What should be banned, however, are the people who use these things to the detriment of society.

To ban the thing itself is to ignore the fact that people should behave responsibly - it removes responsibility from the individual, and places on some inanimate object or concept.

This is incredibly PC, entrirely unbiblical, and seriously harmful to our modern society.

By  Dan, at 8:42 am, November 21, 2005  

What a minute....

Yes Jono - the ultimate sacrifice -to save us from our sins. A sacrifice we didn't deserve or earn. Banning fireworks is not comparable to this. Giving up our personal freedom for the well being of others is. Jesus gave up everything for us- why to would we not give up everything for someone else?

Jono you are saying that personal freedom is more important than the protection of the community.

This is individualistic!! What about the community and what is best for it?

Daniel- To give the use of something a punishment for the use of it is not placing the responsibility on the firecracker. That is silly- "Mr Firework I am sentencing you to 200 hours community work". No it is the person who set the firework alight that gets the punishment. It just gives people clearer boundaries on how to behave- what is wrong with that?

Banning people?? I don't understand this.

God banned Adam and Eve from the eating the fruit on the Garden of Eden. They disobeyed God and when punished and further banned from the Garden. I do not understand how banning something that has harmful consequences to the user and the wider society is unbiblical. God does it all the time!!!!!

Finally 'in theory we shouldn't have to ban things'. We don't live in a theoretical world Daniel, we live in a world of sin and trouble.

By  Anita, at 3:47 pm, November 21, 2005  

Daniel- it would be helpful to use biblical concepts and bible verses to back up your statements.

By  Anita, at 9:35 pm, November 21, 2005  

Freedom in Christ and from sin is a biblical concept.

That is not the kind of freedom we are talking about there Priscilla- we are talking about the freedom to do what we what when we what it and not to have to stop because people can be reckless.

By  Anita, at 9:41 pm, November 21, 2005  

Anita: yes i know -- plus i did say the verse i gave had nothing to do with banning fireworks etc etc --....SO from the sounds of it, what you're saying is that in one sense, freedom is not a biblical concept while in another, it totally is?

By  Priscilla, at 10:44 pm, November 21, 2005  

You know, it will be interesting to see how many people - excluding firemen - will still be talking about wanting to ban fireworks 2months from now? im willing to say very few. Its not a constant threat to society unlike a lot of other things b/c most people dont have as much access to fireworks throughout the year (apart from the few that buy a whole lot every Nov to store up).

By  Priscilla, at 10:52 pm, November 21, 2005  

well 1 month from now they'll be letting off half the leftovers for christmas... then there'll be the rest of them going of at new years and the weekends following that...

Theres still one or two 3am explosions around here.

By  Anonymous, at 3:44 am, November 22, 2005  

What is best for the community is not to control them by laws and regulations. As Dan has JUST SAID... banning fireworks is detrimental to our society as we are removing more and more responsibility from people rather than showing them how to be responsible. Sin is being ignored! The driving factor behind this kind of thing is the idea that we can have a perfect world here on Earth. this will never happen till Christ returns. We can't legislate sin out of our world!

Adam and eve were banned from the garden for 2 specific reasons. Neither of them have anything at all to do with fireworks.

And i'm still at a loss to get where you're coming from when you say that Christs working out of God awesome plan of redeeming the human race has a jot whatsoever to do with us needing to ban fireworks!

By  Jonathan, at 7:35 am, November 22, 2005  

Is there any situation in the Bible where God bans something that is not sin?

Sorry if i'm getting frustrated i just really don't understand where you're coming from!

By  Jonathan, at 7:56 am, November 22, 2005  

Allan - yeah i know w/ New Years coming up n all that will be the case, but i highly doubt we will be hearing them go off in say the middle of June...(well i sincerely hope not!!)

By  Priscilla, at 9:36 am, November 22, 2005  

Priscilla- I wasn't talking about fireworks either. In my reply to you I didn't mention it. And you are right- I am saying exactly that- freedom from sin is biblical - personal freedom (to do what we want to) is not. They are two totally different concepts.

Jono- as I have said Christ coming to redeem us is ABOUT OUR SACRIFICE FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Because we have receivers of the ulitmate sacrifice we should be willing to give up our personal freedom to set fireworks alight because there are people that are hurt by them. Yes they are hurt by mostly reckless people but maybe the whole community must make the sacrifice. As Christians we should be first in line to said 'I will help' not 'I am sorry my personal freedom is more important'

Yes we are removing responsibility. But isn't preventative measures better than learning the hard way? The state can't deal with the sin in people- their job is to protect people. Sometimes people can't be responsible and it is our duty to protect the innocent from harm. Removing the temptation and the stumbling block from people is a bibical concept. 1 Corth8:9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak' Paul is talking about food but it has a wider application.

Sin isn't being ignored - it is being acknowledged and dealt with. 'Ok you can't behave with these things then you lose the privilege'

By  Anita, at 10:57 am, November 22, 2005  

^ i agree Lou =)

Priscilla- I wasn't talking about fireworks either. In my reply to you I didn't mention it...yes but in the context of your earlier reply thats what you were inferring. wanting to restrict an aspect of personal freedom - ie banning the personal use of fireworks.

Personally, i believe there are more items/commodities other than fireworks that cause more harm to society & individuals on a regular basis -- ie throughout the year, not just every November & December.

Just outta interest, do you think something like alcohol should also be banned? Alcohol, like fireworks in the wrong hands, can have some ugly consequences as well...

actually now that i think about it, we should probably be using the word 'restricted' rather than 'ban/banned'

By  Priscilla, at 1:55 pm, November 22, 2005  

Yes they are hurt by mostly reckless people but maybe the whole community must make the sacrifice
Maybe the whole community?...Why?

Sin isn't being ignored - it is being acknowledged and dealt with. 'Ok you can't behave with these things then you lose the privilege'
Sin is being ignored because people are being told that fireworks are bad. They are not I've never see a firework jump out of the bag and burn someone or start a fire. So why should I lose the priviledge when others misbehave?

By  Jonathan, at 4:20 pm, November 22, 2005  

I like fireworks and I like freedom. I'm sure you will get another few hundred nights to catch up on the sleep in your life. Me, I know how to wake people up at night without fireworks. Hahahaha

By  Anonymous, at 8:12 pm, November 22, 2005  

Anita, if it's all about giving up personal freedom, then I could just as easily say that you should give up your personal freedom to sleep so that your neighbour may experience the joy of lighting fireworks, for indeed - and I know no-one is debating this point - fireworks are most enjoyable.

In fact, to love your neighbour as yourself and to consider others better than yourself, would mean that it is perhaps more biblical and Christ-like to graciously allow your neighbour to enjoy his fireworks at the expense of your sleep.

By  Dan, at 8:58 am, November 23, 2005  

I mean seriously - would Jesus have whinged about a dude lighting fireworks outside his house at night? I reckon he would wandered out to enjoy them and to have a friendly chat with his neighbour.

By  Dan, at 11:06 am, November 23, 2005  

Are you accusing me of whinging? That is getting a bit personal Dan. I don't know what Jesus would have done.

But a pregnant womens sleep is more important than a person getting his jollys off lighting a single firecracker in the middle of the night (3am).

I think Jesus would understand my point.

By  Anita, at 4:04 pm, November 29, 2005  

"I don't know what Jesus would have done"

I was actually being serious, and just because the biblical record doesn't contain an account of Jesus being woken by fireworks doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't have some sort of an idea of what He would have done. After all, we're called to follow Him, to live like Him, and this world presents us with many challenges that He doesn't directly address in the Bible.

I'm sorry - I should have chosen a word less stronger than 'whinging'; I didn't actually have you yourself in mind when I chose it - I was thinking more of the general PC attitude of these times.

By  Dan, at 9:20 pm, November 29, 2005  

^ yeah exactly...thats why those wrist bands with WWJD and the like, came out...

By  Priscilla, at 4:23 pm, November 30, 2005  

Post a Comment