Call for ban on sparklers - Page 3

Fev · 15-09-2010, 09:57 AM

If only there was really a place called Motherworld like in the TV ad's lol. Then we would get our freedom of explosions and fire!

As with all of these stories it's the general publics fault for letting the morons that think prohibition is the best answer have a voice, instead of those who understand that learning, eduction and responsibility is the best answer to societies pitfalls.

MAD · 15-09-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

Point is, any idiots can take legal products and cause mayhem. You can't ban everything.

I cant buy a sharp martial arts blade (of any sort) but I can go in to any shopping centre and buy a super sharp kitchen knife.
Some bannings just dont make sense.
If the people making the rules cant even look into them with any detail, like the example above, why are we trusting them to decide what is good for us?

pottery beige · 15-09-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

I cant buy a sharp martial arts blade (of any sort) but I can go in to any shopping centre and buy a super sharp kitchen knife.
Some bannings just dont make sense.
If the people making the rules cant even look into them with any detail, like the example above, why are we trusting them to decide what is good for us?

one is for cutting carrots and cheese... the other is for chopping heads off........

auxr · 15-09-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottery beige

one is for cutting carrots and cheese... the other is for chopping heads off........

Which one do I use for the carrots and cheese ?

Oh and the story about 10 guys with beer and fishing rods on the beach placing an aeroguard can in the fire - yes, we learnt the hard way from that experience also - we just went a little bit more upmarket on the next trip - kiddies, do not try putting a full aluminium tube of condensed milk into a fire and then stand eight feet away awaiting for a result.

grandpa_spec_F6 · 15-09-2010, 11:28 AM

I think this thread is going to be closed if we keep giving people ideas!

The bottom line here seems to be that banning something and labeling it "evil" or "Bad" is far easier because:

A.) It's easier than dealing with the consequences
B.) It's easier than being accountable for your actions
C.) It's cheaper than education and training
D.) It's the lazy way out
E.) Anyone can be a scape goat if things go pear shaped.

pottery beige · 15-09-2010, 12:21 PM

take responsibility for your own foolish actions... simple...

tankclare · 15-09-2010, 01:00 PM

I use to love having fireworks at the family bon fire nights years ago when I was little. Everyone has made sparkler bombs etc and not been hurt. Some people just need to think about what they are doing and acknowledge the dangers. The parents are idiots for trying to blame the sparkler makers.

I am 19 myself and some people would hate to see some of the things we play with at bonfires but we are sensible about how we go about it. Clear plenty of area in paddocks, fuse etc. Sparkler bombs arent that bad. Its when you play with fertilizer and diesel that things go bang. Or oxygen or acetylene in an esky. Brothers mates did it at work and you can still see the burn marks of the esky lid on the overhead crane. Similar to sparklers, gun powder goes up well but enough from me..I'll get myself in trouble if I say anymore. What I'm trying to say is alot of everyday items can be dangerous but you cant ban everything because some people hurt themselves.

SAVE THE SPARKLERS!

Mad_Aussie · 15-09-2010, 01:04 PM

The problem lies with the people who didn't have access to a farm when they were little IMO.

AussieAV · 15-09-2010, 06:36 PM

Its hardly surprising.

Parents, immediately following a tragic accident happening to their son, are looking for something or someone to blame other than themselves. Thats human nature. Part of the grieving process called denial (denying their own contribution).

They aren't starting a campaign, or getting a petition started. They uttered a couple of words in an interview with an opportunistic journalist who probably baited them into saying something the network could use as a headline "Call for ban on sparklers!"

Why is it that we as the public (I include myself) get so worked up over the trumped up headlines produced by the media, that we forget to see if there is any real substance to them.

Last week I had a really bad hamburger from a well known fast food outlet. Didn't open it until I was too far away to be bothered going back. Mentioned to my wife that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with serving c**p like this.

Now if I'd said this in earshot of a TV journalist, the headline would have been;
"Call for closure of all Fast Food outlets following food quality scare!"

GK351 · 15-09-2010, 07:56 PM

Anyone remember Soda bulbs?

I havnt seen them in supermarkets for a while now.

Banning sparklers? Poor kid but seriously.
Whats next banning BMX's ?

pottery beige · 15-09-2010, 08:20 PM

LTD tailshaft with an end chopped off... propped up suitably with sealed end in campfire.... insert old spray cans preferably contact cleaner and stand clear...... enjoy..

ST · 15-09-2010, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Its hardly surprising.

Parents, immediately following a tragic accident happening to their son, are looking for something or someone to blame other than themselves. Thats human nature. Part of the grieving process called denial (denying their own contribution).

They aren't starting a campaign, or getting a petition started. They uttered a couple of words in an interview with an opportunistic journalist who probably baited them into saying something the network could use as a headline "Call for ban on sparklers!"

Why is it that we as the public (I include myself) get so worked up over the trumped up headlines produced by the media, that we forget to see if there is any real substance to them.

Last week I had a really bad hamburger from a well known fast food outlet. Didn't open it until I was too far away to be bothered going back. Mentioned to my wife that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with serving c**p like this.

Now if I'd said this in earshot of a TV journalist, the headline would have been;
"Call for closure of all Fast Food outlets following food quality scare!"

The only difference here is they went on a news program and both clearly stated to the interviewer they should be banned. Not only that but you've taken it out of the wrong context and given an example which doesn't reflect the situation given.

AussieAV · 16-09-2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

The only difference here is they went on a news program and both clearly stated to the interviewer they should be banned. Not only that but you've taken it out of the wrong context and given an example which doesn't reflect the situation given.

Go back and listen to the interview again.

The father's exact words were "I just think they shouldn't be sold". He was expressing an opinion, not making an emphatic demand.

The mother's exact words were "I mean, I'd like to see them banned". Again hardly a call to arms.

On top of that, these were not statements made in a discussion about the pros and cons of sparklers. The parents were describing exactly what had happened to their son, and then made two simple comments that, to my ears, amounted to "I wish they'd never made these sparklers", similar to how someone caught in the grief of a loved one being injured by a drunk driver might say "I wish they'd never invented alcohol".

They never mentioned that they wanted the government or any other authoritative body to look into banning them. They never said this really needs to be looked at seriously. There were simply expressing understandable feelings that they had at that moment in time, expressing regret over what had happened. If it was a serious call to action, they would have expanded on the idea.

But channel 9 has taken those two lines, and turned them into the crux of the story, as if it was a cause the parents were desperate to take up. They skewed their headlines to get the most reaction from the public, and succeeded.

Obviously that's just my take on what happened, but aren't I entitled to that opinion.

ST · 16-09-2010, 01:45 AM

The point I was making was in the context, as most have. These parents have stated this after the incident that has occurred. How is it understandable that they think sparklers "shouldn't be sold" and "banned" when their child under their supervision used the sparklers in a completely inappropriate and dangerous manner that is well above and beyond the intended use?

As an increasingly common case with society today, not only do parents not take responsibility for their own stupidity they seek out someone else to point the finger at.

AussieAV · 16-09-2010, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

The point I was making was in the context, as most have. These parents have stated this after the incident that has occurred. How is it understandable that they think sparklers "shouldn't be sold" and "banned" when their child under their supervision used the sparklers in a completely inappropriate and dangerous manner that is well above and beyond the intended use?

As an increasingly common case with society today, not only do parents not take responsibility for their own stupidity they seek out someone else to point the finger at.

Have you never stubbed your toe, and then said "who put this stupid chair here" all the while knowing that its not the position of the chair that was at fault. You know its your own fault for not looking where you're going, but you strike out at something else in the heat of the moment.

I think these parents did just that, blamed the sparklers knowing full well its not the sparklers fault. Once again, its the media that blew this up into an issue. The parents never pushed it beyond one simple throw away remark each. Channel 9 are the ones who said it over and over again! They are the ones sensationalising it. If you can't or won't see this as a possibility, thats fine. I didn't see one piece of information that shows the parents are adament about banning sparklers. God help us if we are all judged as being 100% behind every word that comes from our mouths.

By your logic bungarra's earlier post means that he is actually going to quit his job and become a bubble wrap salesman.

ST · 16-09-2010, 03:46 AM

You are deliberately avoiding exactly what I have said. Let me put it into point form to make it clear:

1. Child makes 'roman candle' out of a ridiculous amount of sparklers, a method that is absolutely not authorised or recommended in any form by manufacturer.

2. Child is seriously injured by aforementioned roman candle made out of a ridiculous amount of sparklers, the same roman candle which is absolutely not authorised or recommended in any form by manufacturer.

^The above points were also done whilst under the supervision of parents.

3. Parents are interviewed on news in which they each state that sparklers "shouldn't be sold" and should be "banned".

I have written each time they stated the above and never implied they stated it more than once each. This is their word alone, therefore they are blaming the sparklers for the incident in which their child was severely hurt. Also note this was in an interview much later than the incident occurred and it wasn't a simple under the breath word or two.

Do you understand that they are blaming the sparklers/manufacturers of sparklers for their own irresponsible parenting and stupidity? The example of stubbing your toe is in no shape or form similar to this situation, this is a situation where somebody used something intentionally as it was not intended at all and blamed that something for the damage it caused.

If you want an example then I will make it relevant to both the forums and this story: A P-Plater extensively modifies his Holden Commodore and drives it 200kms into a tree. Lets say he survives with similar injuries to the kid in this report. Do you think it is understandable that the parents would wish for Holden Commodores to be banned knowing full well their son modified his car and abused the laws in which it should be driven?

landau460 · 16-09-2010, 06:34 AM

This is going to go on till we cant do anything. There are things that will be illegal and we dont even know it. It sucks but is true, we could all rise up and start another action group but we would only be a minority group and looked at as weirdos. The fact is it is only going to get worse and not much will ever be done about it, it is getting past the point of action for many things. To many people are brainwashed by media and government.
The thing that gives me the craps is people doing insurance jobs on there cars. Hey lets take a free ride a cash grab moment. Lets advance or statis any means known to get ahead. He did it why shouldnt i.
In the high end the rich learn how to manipulate the system (well it is set up for it) and is mostly legal. The low end have not much going for them (pardon that term) they have to slave away like everyone else for less money. And think of ways to make more money like the top end, but know it is easier to lose a car or burn there property to get more money.Then there is growing pott selling drugs and anything that is either stollen or illegal. I Class myself in the lower end and cant say i have never thought of these things only to go back to the thought what if i get caught. That is called a conscience we all have it so do these people blowing themselves up, run across the street drive in an illegal or legal dragrace, buy illegal or sell illegal goods, skydive, look at that big dude the wrong way in the pub. These things all have consequences or conscience kicks in. Even if we were taught wright from
wrong its still there,
It is sad for people that have tragedies. There are the ones caused by other stupid people and the ones caused by their own stupid selves s!@t does happen too.
Life is only for so long and i guess somewish it forever but untill that happens
we have to run with what we got.
Grieving doesnt mean everyone should suffer we all have or own problems.
The problem is tv makes it everyones problem.

pottery beige · 16-09-2010, 06:38 AM

i call for a ban on bans....

AussieAV · 16-09-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

If you want an example then I will make it relevant to both the forums and this story: A P-Plater extensively modifies his Holden Commodore and drives it 200kms into a tree. Lets say he survives with similar injuries to the kid in this report. Do you think it is understandable that the parents would wish for Holden Commodores to be banned knowing full well their son modified his car and abused the laws in which it should be driven?

Perfect example. Yes, I think that in their initial moment of grief they would probably wish that high performance parts were illegal. I think that once they have had a few days to get over whats happenend they would no longer think this, as reason would once again prevail. Grief can make people say things they don't really believe, and do things that they normally wouldn't.

Either you have never experienced any tragedy in your life (congratulations), and honestly have no idea how it can effect the way people act and think immediately following the tragedy, or you just have no ability to empathise with people. Whatever the reasons, we're both entitled to our opinions, although I'm sure you don't agree with that either.

grandpa_spec_F6 · 16-09-2010, 10:18 AM

As I said, my issue is with Channel 9 continuing to propogate this ridiculous mentality of "if it can hurt you, it shouldn't be sold".

I respect your opinions and do understand your point of view. I can fully understand the grief these parents are feeling, however these were not just throw away comments, they were repeated throughout the interview which I agreee could have just been clever editing, but the fact remains that it is comments like these that do have a tangible impact on peoples perceptions.

A better chair analogy would be someone who uses a chair to change a light bulb, and knows a leg is faulty, but changes two or three more. When the chair fails and he falls, he blames the chair for failing, rather than using a safer chair or not using it at all.

Edit: I think bungarra would make a fine bubble wrap sales person

AussieAV · 16-09-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_au

As I said, my issue is with Channel 9 continuing to propogate this ridiculous mentality of "if it can hurt you, it shouldn't be sold".

I can fully understand the grief these parents are feeling, however these were not just throw away comments, they were repeated throughout the interview which I agreee could have just been clever editing, but the fact remains that it is comments like these that do have a tangible impact on peoples perceptions.

A better chair analogy would be someone who uses a chair to change a light bulb, and knows a leg is faulty, but changes two or three more. When the chair fails and he falls, he blames the chair for failing, rather than using a safer chair or not using it at all.

I apologise for the fact that I have obviously lost the ability to put my thoughts across in a way people can understand.

I agree with you grandpa_spec_au. I've been trying to say all along that channel 9 is the culprit here. The parents only made their statements once. It is the channel 9 newsreader and reporter that pushed and repeated the whole "ban" concept.

mick10010 · 16-09-2010, 10:38 AM

Reminds me of a time when i was about 15...spud gun in the big empty block where the hospital used to be years and years ago.

Someone decided we were terrorists so police and fire trucks showed up, taken back to my mates mums house in a paddy, who is a magistrate (my old mans a copper and one of my other mate who was withs us mum is the chief magistrate

)...no one hurt, but needless to say they didn't blame the potatoes.

Back on topic OP and pretty much everyone in this thread is 100% right, shouldn't even need to be said. Makes me sad that my kids aren't going to be able to do the same things i did when i was young if society keeps going down this route.

steve.zissou · 16-09-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad_Aussie

The problem lies with the people who didn't have access to a farm when they were little IMO.

This.

Move to a rural area and do what you want (its cheaper than you think - I got 40 acres just over an hour north of sydney for $400,000.) I might do some clay pigon shooting when i get home this afternoon. - which reminds me of a new song by that guy that sang "i like guns" - seems appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1geyoxeifk0

auxr · 16-09-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrckelley

This.

Move to a rural area and do what you want (its cheaper than you think - I got 40 acres just over an hour north of sydney for $400,000.) I might do some clay pigon shooting when i get home this afternoon. - which reminds me of a new song by that guy that sang "i like guns" - seems appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1geyoxeifk0

Hey that's great - can I bring my sparklers, two dozen empty spray cans, a tub a gun powder,6 steel tubes & a small thermo nuclear device over to your place to play.

ST · 16-09-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Perfect example. Yes, I think that in their initial moment of grief they would probably wish that high performance parts were illegal.

You actually believe that? I have had family members and myself involved in crashes. One incident involved my brother crashing a VX Berlina into a tree which was modified with an LS1 in it producing over 300kw. Not once did any member of my family or myself mention or blame the car/modifications even straight after the crash. It was my brothers fault plain and simple and he took responsibility for it.

Here is a simpler equation; take the modifications off the list. A young man on his P's drives his car into a tree at 200km/h. Would you still suggest it would be understandable for the parents to blame the car for his misuse of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I think that once they have had a few days to get over whats happenend they would no longer think this, as reason would once again prevail. Grief can make people say things they don't really believe, and do things that they normally wouldn't.

That is true, however going by the how much the kids face has healed and the fact they had a formal interview with a news program I would say this is at the very least a few days later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Either you have never experienced any tragedy in your life (congratulations), and honestly have no idea how it can effect the way people act and think immediately following the tragedy, or you just have no ability to empathise with people.

I absolutely have experienced tragedy and am able to empathise with others, that is a very cheap uninformed shot at me and has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Of course I do not wish harm upon the kid from this story, but the simple fact is this was a situation that could've been easily avoided with common sense and proper supervision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Whatever the reasons, we're both entitled to our opinions, although I'm sure you don't agree with that either.

That is quite contradictory going by your posts in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I apologise for the fact that I have obviously lost the ability to put my thoughts across in a way people can understand.

Everybody can understand exactly what you are saying and I know where you are coming from, the media does often exploit and manipulate to create a story. But this was not a case of somebody being victimised by a news program, they (as in the parents/child) made the error and there were consequences for that error. It is their responsibility to face that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I agree with you grandpa_spec_au. I've been trying to say all along that channel 9 is the culprit here. The parents only made their statements once. It is the channel 9 newsreader and reporter that pushed and repeated the whole "ban" concept.

The culprit for what? A child completely misused sparklers while under the supervision of his parents and they would like to see sparklers banned. Simple as that.

The point I have made the entire time is how common it is today that people are becoming increasingly less responsible for their actions. This is one of those cases and it is even more absurd due to how the incident came about in the first place.

grandpa_spec_F6 · 16-09-2010, 03:02 PM

I would just like to to say it is great to see such an wealth of opinions and discussions on the matter. If we only make a few on the forum aware of this and get them thinking, I believe we have made a positive step in the RIGHT direction.

From what I have gathered, foreign influence has been a major contributor to the current culture and stigma relating to the litigation side of things, but when did we become so gutless? When did Aussies suddenly turn into this pack of concerned citizens who didn't want to offend anyone, who didn't want to be seen in a bad light?

In relation to another thread started by 'flappist' called "Should the voting age be raised to 30?" which I recommend you all have a read of, when did we start taking things lying down? Why is it that whenever something is to be banned, a small fuss is kicked up, but there is never any media stories about a group of people protesting? It seems to always be one member of a group or 'concerned party' who is pushing for a ban, and gets all the air time.

Edited: Political mumbojumbo taken out

AussieAV · 16-09-2010, 07:48 PM

Note to Mods---- I know this is a novel, but hope you'll allow it as I would really like my opinion understood. Quite happy for people to disagree with me, just want to make sure they are disagreeing with what I'm actually trying to say, and not a misunderstanding of it.

ST, if you noticed my post on page one (#19) I am not arguing that they are not responsible. They are! Here it is again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Agree with you grandpa_spec_au. Glad the outcome wasn't worse, and hope the best for the kid.

Can't believe they'd done it before, and all with the parents OK and supervision. The parents were no youngsters either, mother is a nurse. Can't believe they're trying to blame the sparklers.

Hopefully just a media beat-up, mum and dad saying they want them banned is hardly a national campaign, but just in case better start stockpiling those matches. Once they realise they can start fires our wonderful protectors will whip them off the shelves.

I agree with you that the people have only themselves to blame, and that the concept of trying to ban sparklers as a result is absurd.

I then took the time to replay the interview a number of times, and came to realise that my initial reaction (which was the same as yours and many others here) was more in response to the way channel 9 presented the story, and not the words of the parents.

Each time I played it, I became more and more of the view that my initial reaction (you'll notice I actually said "can't believe they're trying to blame the sparklers" too) was caused more by the way 9 presented the story, and not by the few (only 15 to be exact) words of the parents.

I kept following everyones comments, and while I certainly agreed with most of the sentiments, I felt the need to put forward my opinion that the underlying anger should maybe be pointed more at channel 9 than the parents.

All I have done since post #19 is try to get across that maybe we should be blaming 9 and not the parents, for making the focus of this story about banning sparklers. I honesty think the parents were just trying to tell the story of what happened so that others didn't repeat their mistake. They didn't even make the comments about sparklers not being sold until the interviewer lead them into it. To me it hardly appeared to be the first thing on there mind.

As for the points you made

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

You actually believe that? I have had family members and myself involved in crashes. One incident involved my brother crashing a VX Berlina into a tree which was modified with an LS1 in it producing over 300kw. Not once did any member of my family or myself mention or blame the car/modifications even straight after the crash. It was my brothers fault plain and simple and he took responsibility for it.

I hope your brother was OK and did not suffer any serious injury. If it was my son and he had been seriously injured or worse, then yes, part of me would have questioned if I should have let him modify his car - part of the grieving process. If he had walked away pretty much unharmed, I'd probably want to kick this **** for loosing control, and not have given a second thought about whether the car was modified or not.

In this scenario, while I personally wouldn't blame the sellers of aftermarket HP gear, I could understand if others temporarily felt that way, and wouldn't crucify them for saying so. If however they then started actually campaigning to ban HP gear, I'd happily join the opposite campaign to keep it on the shelves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

That is true, however going by the how much the kids face has healed and the fact they had a formal interview with a news program I would say this is at the very least a few days later.

I doubt the news would have sat on the story for a few days, and even if they did, everybody handles grief and trauma differently. If you can get over it quickly, more power to you. For some it can take weeks, months or even years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

I absolutely have experienced tragedy and am able to empathise with others, that is a very cheap uninformed shot at me and has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

You're probably right, I did word that badly. Certainly didn't set out to intentionally hurt your feelings, but I was fired up and didn't think about how my words could be taken -I Apologise!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

Of course I do not wish harm upon the kid from this story, but the simple fact is this was a situation that could've been easily avoided with common sense and proper supervision.

As I said before, I totally agree with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

That is quite contradictory going by your posts in this thread.

Actually have no problem with everyone having their own opinion. I've been replying to your posts, not to change your opinion, but to try and have mine understood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

Everybody can understand exactly what you are saying and I know where you are coming from, the media does often exploit and manipulate to create a story. But this was not a case of somebody being victimised by a news program, they (as in the parents/child) made the error and there were consequences for that error. It is their responsibility to face that.

Doesn't feel like I've been understood, because I'm not saying that they didn't stuff up. They did, and of course its their responsibility. I'm saying I don't think there is any evidence to suggest they are actually campaigning to get sparklers banned. If they were, surely they would have made mention of how potential supporters could contact them, or tell them to write to their local member, or anything about how to support the cause they supposedly have. Channel 9 are the ones making this the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

The culprit for what?

The culprit saying there is a push to get sparklers banned. This is 9 blowing the parents words out of proportion (again IMHO).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

A child completely misused sparklers while under the supervision of his parents and they would like to see sparklers banned. Simple as that.

This is the only place we really differ. I don't think their comments were a serious, carefully considered plea for actual change. You think they were. That fine. Guess we'll never know, unless of course in the coming weeks they actually start lobbying the government. If they do, I will happily concede I was wrong and they are as bad as everyone says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

The point I have made the entire time is how common it is today that people are becoming increasingly less responsible for their actions.

I Agree!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ST

This is one of those cases and it is even more absurd due to how the incident came about in the first place.

Still think we're jumping the gun, and that they weren't serious about sparklers being to dangerous to be sold. I doubt they will still be saying this next month. As I said, I could easily be proven wrong.

ST · 16-09-2010, 07:59 PM

Well said mate.

I think we are pretty much on the same page but were at odds over a couple of (misunderstood) issues. The news certainly blows everything out of proportion for the sake of controversy and an eye-catching headline.