Man Does Something Stupid – Suffers For It.

by Steve MacDonald

hb336 would ban some fireworks in NHDoubleyouemyouare News Nine in NH is reporting an incident in which a 48 year old Tilton, NH man had to be hospitalized after (unintentionally?) stopping a firework with his face.  While details are sketchy–was he sober, did he lose his balance, was he pushed, did a YouTube video make him place his face over the tube when it discharged–his physical injuries were not life threatening.

We here at GraniteGrok hope for his quick and complete recovery.  It probably hurt like hell, and may have resulted in permanent eye injury (we hope not), and there is very likely been or will be someone in his life telling him they told him so…for the rest of his life, maybe…because the experience of being the victim or the observer, had to be frightening, and that doesn’t just go away.  You have to let it out somehow. But you have know when you owned it.

The only thing more frightening would be having to again suffer through the nearly perennial effort (by those just looking for any excuse) to introduce more state regulations and oversight of the entire populace because of one (or even just a few) fireworks accidents that were the result of less than stellar behaviors on the part of the victim or those nearby.

To put that into some perspective, over the same weekend several people in New Hampshire actually died in motor vehicle accidents including at the bottom of trees–an unfortunate and  common end in NH for those who die in or near their vehicles.  Other died as a result of swimming accidents.  No one will be banning cars, motorcycles, trees, water, or swimming.  Nor will anyone call for enhanced government intrusion into the qualifications of those driving, driving near trees, loitering near water in swimming attire, very likely after having driven past some trees to get to the water at which they were now loitering.

Accidents happen. The answer to how or why is almost always that it was the product of unwise behavior.  Human error.  So instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that a few more laws is all we need to fix it, why not ask if the person knew the behavior had risks?  If yes, why did they then engage in it?  If no, then why didn’t they know or are they lying about their knowledge.  And regardless of which, either, neither, or some explanation as yet unexplored, if ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law, why must ignorance be an excuse to write more of them?

Most lawmakers do not know the law, not all of them, so to what end would adding more laws result in changes to public behavior?  Well, you’d have to educate them about the law, yes?

Is there a law that says we cannot educate people about a thing in the absence of the law?  Would it not make more sense to simply point out that when you are less than diligent in your care and handling with regard to lawful activities with some potential to cause harm that actual harm may result?

Is there no natural inclination left in the human spirit, in the absence of legal force or remedy, that instructs us to exercise common sense and a modicum of intellectual agility in every aspect of our day to day lives for the benefit of ourselves, family, friends, and even community?

This is a critical point.  It is crucial because those who would jump at every opportunity to legislate every possible behavior, for any reason imaginable, based on even the most obscure catalyst, are either convinced that you cannot function without their oversight–backed up by the force of law, threat of fines or imprisonment,  and an army of taxpayer funded ‘peace officers’ to collect the evidence against you…or are simply looking for every opportunity to redistribute power from the people to the state.

No one has yet (to my knowledge) made the annual progressive pilgrimage to regulation-mecca with regard to denying you your personal right to risk hurting yourself or your loved ones (or the assorted consenting adults who bring their children knowing full well the potential to hurt yourself or others) with fireworks.   But they will.  And they will say “a concerned constituent asked me to submit this bill.”

So if a concerned constituent asked you to submit a bill to roll back regulations or lower fees or taxes we could then expect the same progressive nanny stater (from either side of the aisle) to dutifully introduce that with their support as well?

Why not?



Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: