Submitted by joshua lomask, Aug 1, 2007 10:28

Both Eric Havermann and "pyro nut" reinforce my arguement. My response to Eric Havermann's article, "bonfire and Illuminations", emphasizes that there is a very real past that we can look to to show the dangers of Eric Havermann's naive and unrealistic reliance on individual responsibility in the use of unregulated fireworks. His suburban dream of kids happily twirling sparklers in the backyard just doesn't jibe with reality. The woman in Michigan who was killed is reality. The July 4th of NYC"s pre-regulated use of fireworks is reality. "Pyro nut" seems to know a whole lot about fireworks. But his own arguement reinforces the need for regulation. Where did that woman in Mchigan get such a device? Why shouldn't those types of devices be regulated? Furthermore, "pyro nut" fails to adress the very real risk to people who have nothing to do with the operation of fireworks. In rural America, "pyro nut" can set off all the firewoks he wants with no objection from me. But , in New York City "pyro nut' should be considered just that, a pyro nut.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.