I recently moved to the St. Louis area for a software job at Boeing. I'm actually in a nice quiet neighborhood in St. Charles right under the flight path for planes landing at Lambert Field.
The fireworks last night were insane. All around me folks were setting off commercial grade fireworks bursting hundreds of feet in the air. The house was shaking, my dogs were freaking out, one of them had a seizure. The air was filled with smoke and smelled of gun powder. It was one of the craziest things I've ever experienced.
Next year I'll definitely be planning an out-of-town vacation for the 4th to some location with firework restrictions.
I don't know what the planes were doing; I didn't hear or see any landing with all the smoke and noise.
40-50 years ago, fireworks were largely unregulated across the US and were a major part of the 4th of July cultural experience. Dangerous, slightly reckless, and incredibly fun. I have fond memories of this as a child. It is a big part of American culture, like turkey on Thanksgiving.
Every country has rules that exist but which are culturally unenforceable. Today, fireworks are outlawed in much of the US because safety. Americans refuse to comply across such a broad cross-section of people that it is effectively unenforceable. The cultural contradiction is too strong, people won’t give up their traditions for mere safety reasons. Even the nominal enforcers don’t believe in it. No one is motivated to actually enforce it.
This may be unsatisfying for many people but the impossibility of enforcing fireworks bans in the US captures an important component of the American zeitgeist. It is annoying for me sometimes but I recognize that this reflects an aspect of American culture that you can’t just erase.
> this reflects an aspect of American culture that you can’t just erase.
Yeah, and that’s the problem. A whole country full of people belligerent enough to say “fuck you” to anyone who tells them “hey you probably shouldn’t blow your hand off”. What a wonderful place.
But this is none of your business. I live in Germany, where everything is regulated by well meaning people. Going so far to regulate what you ought to say or to watch.
It is hellish. I don't recognize the country any more in which I was born and raised.
Nah, I’d rather beg for money than be run over by some dipshit driving a truck on swampers that’s 3 times as big as they’ll ever need. Oh, wait, in other countries you don’t have to beg and plead to receive healthcare.
Fireworks on holidays were also a huge part of Chinese culture, but they've been banned now in cities and the ban seems to be mostly effective.
China even has the same issue as the US, where they aren't banned at the national level so you can still drive two hours and buy them legally. And whatever your stereotypes, China has plenty of scofflaws who aren't going to give something up just because the government tells them to, and its police are, very broadly, less heavy-handed as the US
I suspect banning firework sales in the US would have a significant impact.
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.
Given American policing culture, I really don't buy that the police can't show up and start arresting you for public endangerment. They may not want to, but that is different
I realize as a Californian we may not count as "American" in this particular zeitgeist stereotype. But FWIW we have a firework ban in Nevada County that is widely respected. There are very few violations and the law is actively enforced.
The difference is we are in a no-joke dangerous fire situation and everyone recognizes it. Most people know better than to set off incendiary explosives in a forest. Anyone who shot off illegal fireworks would immediately be shamed and censured by their neighbors. I guess it's a form of commune-ism.
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"...
Illinois prohibits unlicensed individuals from buying or setting off commercial grade fireworks. People buy them in Indiana. Some of the largest fireworks stores in the country sit right on the Indiana side of the state line.
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!?!?”
My opinion about how people use fireworks changed when I adopted a dog from a shelter and discovered how deeply traumatizing booms are to her. From chatting with other dog owners this seems to be common. If my neighbors could see the extent fireworks affect the same friendly, silly pup their children love greeting everyday, they would probably think twice about how they use them. We can manage the night of the 4th by traveling out of town, but the 1-2 weeks of random booms that follow the holiday are really tough for us.
> Next year I'll definitely be planning an out-of-town vacation for the 4th to some location with firework restrictions
Fireworks are not legal to shoot in pretty much any city. They are not legal in my city. That did not stop them from being used. In fact, they are going off around me the night after too
A few years ago, on July 4th one of my mom's dogs freaked out, somehow managed to escape, and got hit by a car before my mom found her. She loved that dog, regularly attending nose work competitions with it.
One of your pets getting a seizure must be harrowing for both you and the dog.
It's insane to me how much dogs are supposedly loved by such a large chunk of the pop, and yet people proceed to go apeshit with fireworks fully knowing how badly this affects them.
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.
We have three dogs of different breeds and ages, none of them handle fireworks well. They don't have seizures, but one of them turns into a quivering, shaking mess and the other two try to hide under couches and beds. I wish they were okay with it, but my wife and I have to plan our 4th around the dogs because of how they react.
My dog, now passed after a long and happy life, loved fireworks deeply. It was his favorite day of the year. He would chase and pretend to bite, bark, and run around with joy.
I've had two dogs. One didn't like fireworks but would just turn his head towards the noise then walk over to the nearest human, and the other completely ignored them.
However! The first was a Labrador cross and the second was full lab. Breeds intended for use as gun dogs might not react to gunpowder and explosions as much.
That study doesn't say "freak out". It says 83% ever showed "any fear" of fireworks, which is a huge variation. My doesn't like going outside when there are fireworks, but the sound of rain freaks him out way more.
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.
> Getting your dog used to loud and sudden noises can make them more relaxed and less reactive when the fireworks outside get going. There’s a good range of CDs and playlists of fireworks, storms, and loud noises available, and playing these can really help your dog desensitise to the noise.
> Start by playing the sounds at a low volume, and as your dog gets used to it you can slowly increase the volume over a period of time so that they become used to the noise. This can work especially well with young dogs and puppies, and can let you nip any problems in the bud before they even arise.
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.
Jeez, just imagine a ballistic missile hitting your neighbour's house, with no indication or alert coming ahead. I would bet a good 50€ that you'd be freaking the shit out.
I agree, but luckily my terrier apparently doesn't give a poo about fireworks. Probably nobody jad thrown fireworks at him yet. My inlaws' country dog (also a fox terrier mix with the same temperament) growls at people, especially teens, smelling of powder and barks at fireworks and motorbikes. Good thing he's not a Malinois to nip those teens and chase the motorbikes. So it'a more of a nature vs. nurture thing.
Given that most dogs are adopted from shelters, dog behavior is often a reflection of early upbringing. The current owner can train and teach their dog, but some behaviors and fears set in fairly early on.
Moreover, many dogs are beaten or worse when they’re young, and undoing that fear and trauma is a lifelong (for the dog) struggle.
Thus, dog behavior is far from “strictly a reflection of their [current] owner.”
Fireworks are a traumatic and disruptive intrusion on their environment akin to a temporary war. We (humans) already do enough traumatic and disruptive intrusions on the lives of wild animals, that doing this wholly unnecessary “just for funsies” thing is particularly cruel.
It’s rich how you’ve decided to call out “city people” as being responsible for the situation rather than the trash individuals who set off illegal fireworks.
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.
STL is famous for having a large number of folks shooting guns into the air on New Years. So much so that there are warnings to not go outside. Stay safe.
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 …
As another STL resident, fireworks are illegal everywhere in the County (not sure if St. Charles as well, but probably), and our local muni PD even sent out multiple warnings about prosecution.
But our inner ring suburb was similarly full of smoke last night and the smell of many amateur fireworks shows.
Only a few in my neighborhood, but they were quite the production. I remember firing a few bottle rockets as a kid, but these were definitely a few steps above that! Sounded like mini mortars, maybe those boxes with a bunch of shells timed to go after each other.
Last night some neighbors set off some illegal fireworks a few blocks from our house. My husband was out on a walk when the paramedics arrived because one of them had burned off half his face and another his arm.
> Despite strict fireworks bans in many cities, including Oakland, they’ve become a year-round nuisance in the Bay Area. And one of the primary ways they’re spread is through the enterprising but illegal work of small-time dealers who obtain the contraband from licensed shops outside of California, sneak it into the state, and then sell hundreds and even thousands of pounds of explosives out of homes, vehicles, storage units, and even corner stores.
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.
Yeah not sure why that changed, when I was a kid you could only get sparklers and small stuff that stayed on the ground. Today I could get everything for a near-professional show if I wanted to spend the money.
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.
> actual m80's that were like a quarter stick of dynamite
Not even close.
A military M80 [0] is ~5g of flash powder, an inconsequential amount of low-explosive albeit enough to seriously injure yourself. The consumer "M80" are even weaker. These are used to simulate real explosions by the military.
The smallest standardized military demolition charge contains ~110g of TNT, in a similar small cylindrical format. There are multiple orders of magnitude difference in power between an M80 and these demolition charges.
A "quarter stick of dynamite" isn't a standard thing. But if it was, it would probably come in around 50g of TNT equivalent.
You could sure make decent explosives with OTC fireworks though - in the early 90s we would buy hundreds of those whistling fireworks, hammer them, cut the bottoms off, and then fill various bottles with all the powder. We made a shockwave with one of our makeshift bombs and decided we should probably stop after that.
The old school whistling fireworks were often based on picrate chemistry. Picrates famously have the ability when burned to hover between normally deflagration and true detonation; the whistling is a side effect of this. One of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history (see below) was a picrate explosion. These aren’t used anymore for safety reasons; they don’t have a great stability profile and picrates are true high-explosives.
Over the years they have found alternatives for and phased out most high-explosives used in fireworks. Many high-explosives will just deflagrate/burn but can spontaneously detonate with considerable power if the conditions are right, which makes them dangerous.
Have advances in explosives, fuses and quality control made fireworks safer in the last 40 years?
Or perhaps the safety improvements are offset by sellers now offering bigger fireworks (either because those are now actually safe, or just because of a general hedonic improvement).
Either way I would be interested in reading more about this. At the least it's a counterpoint to what happened with illegal drugs which seem to have become more dangerous as a result of regulation and bans.
M80s were more like 1/8th of a stick, I think. My uncle bought quarter sticks of dynamite one time. Wow. Quite a bit bigger and louder than an M80, and M80s were LOUD! My dad's cousin blew off most of his thumb and parts of several fingers with one. It was old, and it had a flash fuse. He was planning to toss it, but it went off instantly. (Don't hold fireworks when you are lighting them.)
A couple of years ago my brother got some flat triangles from a guy on the side of the road. First thing I've seen in years that was like an M80. We put a flat soccer ball over one, and it went 50 feet in the air. Very fun.
> 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.
Yep. I volunteered for a real fireworks show in California once. The size of the mortars was… so much bigger than the stuff I was used to seeing people get at fireworks shops.
Along with the reminder from the safety coordinator that each firework was capable of completely talking your arm or leg off. The “consumer” grade fireworks aren’t capable of that, although they’re still dangerous.
Being homemade is (almost) never in and of itself a reason. A lack of knowledge or judgment certainly can be. However often the motivation for DIY is to circumvent regulations to go big but of course one of the primary reasons for such regulations is that the associated consequences when things go wrong are dire. The story could well have turned out the same even if the item had been purchased from a reputable vendor. There's a very good reason the professional shows use barges or large fields and set up a huge exclusion zone around them.
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.
Rather than regulate fireworks out of existence wouldn't it be better to fix the problem at the root? Why do we permit such fire prone housing to be built just to save a few dollars?
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.
Also, to add to this what we’ve learned about fires and houses is that.. it’s less about how the house is built.
Whether a house catches fire or not is almost always due to the landscaping, maintenance, and roof of the house.
Traditional house siding and roof will resist flames and fires. However, if an overgrown bush catches fire it will cause enough heat to the side of the house to break down that protection and set it aflame. Same with leaves in gutters, etc.
No, it really was a question. Please don't inject your own biases and assumptions when interpreting my words.
It seems that you've invented a false dichotomy where the only options are wood frame or brick and concrete and then assumed me to be advocating for the latter. I was not. There are a variety of ways in which wood frame structures can be made less prone to external sources of fire. At least a few jurisdictions in california have adopted some of these methods into code as of late.
My question implied judgment to an extent, sure, but it was also genuine in that I truly do not understand why we as a society are not more proactive about these things. It isn't limited to fires either. In the face of all sorts of natural disasters we consistently optimize regulations for cost rather than safety. Consider the myriad examples of structures being built in flood prone areas.
Off topic but I went to a local town’s medium-sized professional fireworks show this weekend and there were none of those small flash really loud fireworks that shake you to the core. Not even in the grand finale. Oddly they are what I enjoy most. Have they gone out of fashion or do they mess too much with pets?
There are such a wide variety of fireworks available now there is probably less need for those specifically. The show I was at still had enough loud booms to set off dozens of cars' alarms repeatedly during the twenty minutes.
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.
I miss those too. I remember as a kid one display that shot a bunch of really bright white flare-like fireworks that were blinding and hung in the sky followed by dozens of those small but loud ones and it was memorable.
Flying into London on November 5 a decade or so ago I was struck by how similar things looked to WW2 bombing run photographs, except it was in colour.
A moment of pause.
(The Australian War memorial has a museum with the nose of a Lancaster bomber, and they run footage inside it (or a mock up, they have a lot of stuff) projected onto the floor and forward view taken by bombing observation film crews during the raids on Germany)
This is more of an issue with operating during the week before and after 4th of July in Chicago. As I'm writing fireworks are going off.
Fireworks (display) kinds are illegal in Illinois and there are absolutely no fireworks shot off the before and after 4th of july. Nothing happens nothing to see here.
What is sad is that a few irresponsible people are always what end up ruining something that most can manage to do without endangering others. Growing up it was a yearly thing where my family would go somewhere safe away from public and set off fireworks.
Fireworks are a lot of fun. Sure not everyone's thing but many enjoy them and can manage to use basic safety and not endanger anyone.
I just can't believe a firework going off right at an airport was not intentional. I believe someone was most likely thinking "I'm gonna lite this off right by a plane for all to see my awesome show!". Not trying to hit the jet but rather just look at me people isn't this awesome!? No it is not.
This is the type of thing that ends up getting fireworks banned or more controlled for the rest of us.
Reminds me of the idiot who flew his drone over an active forest fire while crews were actively fighting it causing the helicopters or water bombers to have to disengage the fire until the drone was gone. Then drone rules get tightened for the average guy just wanting to have fun responsibly.
Many fireworks are designed to explode at altitude. The biggest risk is probably if the firework is ingested into an engine (also a major risk for bird strikes).
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.
Even small bird strikes are usually a non-event, as the engines are designed to withstand them (there's a very well-known YouTube video of frozen chickens being fired into one, and those are already a lot bigger and harder than most birds they'll encounter.) It's the big ones that make the news.
Am I the only one who thinks the risks are worth the reward? People are celebrating, kids are having fun. Yes a few people blow their hands off, but are we going to remove everything, one by one, in the name of safety?
Nope, completely with you on this. The logical conclusion of banning everything dangerous is everything in existence being banned. There are many things people do that I think are dumb or dangerous but that doesn't mean I think they should be banned from doing them.
I have a beautiful memory from a summer night long ago, in Barceloneta on the evening of the summer solstice—the festival of Saint Joan [0]. I didn’t know it was coming, which was its own special sort of astonishment… walked in to eat dinner, walked out to a mountain of furniture on fire in the intersection, air thick with gunpowder smoke, bands of youths firing Roman candles at one other…
The specific image that comes to mind, though—I remember dozens upon dozens of ambulances lined up at the ready along the waterfront, their crews hanging out enjoying the madness until they would be called upon.
Having been raised in pretty cautious circles, that image struck me: the powers-that-be knew some proportion of bad stuff would happen. I figured that meant they’d “just make a law against it.” Instead of trying to stop it, though, they focused on preparedness and timely response.
Since then, of course, I’ve learned that The Law has a lot less raw power than I’d imagined against tradition and popular will…
Since then I’ve accepted as creed that the best and most human parts of life reach their most salient in the moments of paradox between principles. “Avoid safety risks” is correct, “living fully requires accepting risks” is also correct.
I’m with you. I shoot off small fireworks for my kids and my immediate neighbor on our quiet street, and we have a neighbor a few doors down who invariably calls the cops. This has been going on since the 2000s when she moved in. If I’m fined, I just pay it.
Come on, it’s not a choice between complete anarchy and complete restriction.
It is very, very fair for society to be like “hm I think X activity is easy to abuse in a way that hurts innocent bystanders,” and then limits the activity to people with licenses and training or things like that.
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?
I don’t care if it’s just your own life at risk. But 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. The people most likely to do this shit in the streets have no clue what they’re doing.
> 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".
What if there was one day a year where it was expected for people to speed through your neighborhood at 20 over the speed limit, which ends up with a bunch of people driving into houses with their vehicles?
It's not really the fireworks that is the issue. It's the alcohol, drugs, and overall attitude towards a dangerous activity. It's a bit different than a random mishap or whatnot.
> What if there was one day a year where it was expected for people to speed through your neighborhood at 20 over the speed limit, which ends up with a bunch of people driving into houses with their vehicles?
You mean All Saints Day (1st of November)? No, thousands of drunk drivers taking dozens of innocent lives and hurting hundreds more, year after year like a clockwork, is still not a reason to ban trucks, or any other car type. Or to cancel All Saints Day, if that's what you're implying.
Stealing electricity is already illegal. Driving a truck into your home could be a genuine accident, but it's more likely that alcohol was involved first (which is illegal with driving).
> 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.
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.
Large? When fireworks within the ATF limits for unlicensed individuals are used according to manufacturer instructions they explode on the ground or in the air in a way that does not endanger the surrounding structures. Of course you can't safely light them off in a narrow alley between three story buildings. Anyone doing that (or similarly foolish things) was behaving recklessly to begin with.
>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.
I am fine with the professional fireworks shows but people setting fireworks inside residential areas, in all hours of night, for weeks during summer is just people being massive douchebags.
Fun fact: “Midway” is also the name of an American manufacturer of video and pinball games, and a Pacific theater of war in World War II, the most important victory in US Naval history. (The airport took this name in July 1949, according to the English Wikipedia.)
I loved playing with fireworks as a kid, and surprisingly have all appendages and senses intact, I even considered pyro as a job - so I definitely get the appeal.
I just think it's time that we left it to the professionals. Unless you are engaging in science or physics, I don't see the value in letting them off yourself.
~~It's also weird that America's birthday is celebrated using a Chinese invention.~~ Edit: bad point, I stand corrected.
Maybe leaving it to professionals would make more sense, but the majority of people aren’t in favor of it. I’m not even in favor of it and I had a couple fireworks bursting right outside my balcony last night. I was on the balcony and a ducked, though I would have been fine if I didn’t. Maybe require a brief safety training before purchasing? I’m not sure exactly what is going to reduce stupid behavior with explosives.
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?
I think consensual duels should still be legal. Numerous states have laws about mutual combat where it is perfectly legal to beat the fuck out of each other.
I see way too many trashy people setting off commercial grade illegal fireworks in the middle of crowded cities and neighborhoods. It is incredibly disruptive and damaging. Vets are traumatized. Dogs are traumatized. And sleep deprived parents have to repeatedly put babies back to sleep. It is insane that police do not enforce laws against these criminals.
> It is insane that police do not enforce laws against these criminals.
Not that I've known a ton of people who work for local police departments, but the majority of the ones I have known are exactly the type of people who are likely to partake in illegal residential fireworks around the 4th of July.
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.
Plenty of places people can move without others around. I might feel a bit of empathy for someone living surrounded by farmland and having a city built up around them, but that is incredibly rare and even in that case that only makes their property far more valuable to sell and move to another cheap rural area. If someone moves into an expanding suburb or right on the edge of a city and complains about the city expanding, zero empathy, they should of thought about that when they bought the property.
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.
"Population changes" and "anti social" being codewords for anyone not in your small group of acceptable people who follow your rules and share your priorities. You were there first so why can't you be the boss?
Laws are laws, and they still exist. Being anti social means acting in ways that affect others in society negatively. That’s what setting off fireworks late at night is. Yes, they need to follow OUR rules because we live in a society. And they should share my priorities. If they were doing things that ONLY affect them, that’s different. But we’re talking about waking everyone else up. Spare me your virtue signaling.
I recently moved to the St. Louis area for a software job at Boeing. I'm actually in a nice quiet neighborhood in St. Charles right under the flight path for planes landing at Lambert Field.
The fireworks last night were insane. All around me folks were setting off commercial grade fireworks bursting hundreds of feet in the air. The house was shaking, my dogs were freaking out, one of them had a seizure. The air was filled with smoke and smelled of gun powder. It was one of the craziest things I've ever experienced.
Next year I'll definitely be planning an out-of-town vacation for the 4th to some location with firework restrictions.
I don't know what the planes were doing; I didn't hear or see any landing with all the smoke and noise.
40-50 years ago, fireworks were largely unregulated across the US and were a major part of the 4th of July cultural experience. Dangerous, slightly reckless, and incredibly fun. I have fond memories of this as a child. It is a big part of American culture, like turkey on Thanksgiving.
Every country has rules that exist but which are culturally unenforceable. Today, fireworks are outlawed in much of the US because safety. Americans refuse to comply across such a broad cross-section of people that it is effectively unenforceable. The cultural contradiction is too strong, people won’t give up their traditions for mere safety reasons. Even the nominal enforcers don’t believe in it. No one is motivated to actually enforce it.
This may be unsatisfying for many people but the impossibility of enforcing fireworks bans in the US captures an important component of the American zeitgeist. It is annoying for me sometimes but I recognize that this reflects an aspect of American culture that you can’t just erase.
> this reflects an aspect of American culture that you can’t just erase.
Yeah, and that’s the problem. A whole country full of people belligerent enough to say “fuck you” to anyone who tells them “hey you probably shouldn’t blow your hand off”. What a wonderful place.
But this is none of your business. I live in Germany, where everything is regulated by well meaning people. Going so far to regulate what you ought to say or to watch.
It is hellish. I don't recognize the country any more in which I was born and raised.
> But this is none of your business.
The culture described extends far into things that are my business, like being able to walk around without being shot.
Beats the pants off "please sir, may I have some more" as seen in many other places
Nah, I’d rather beg for money than be run over by some dipshit driving a truck on swampers that’s 3 times as big as they’ll ever need. Oh, wait, in other countries you don’t have to beg and plead to receive healthcare.
I'm fine with idiots blowing their own hands off, I just worry about wildfires.
Fireworks on holidays were also a huge part of Chinese culture, but they've been banned now in cities and the ban seems to be mostly effective.
China even has the same issue as the US, where they aren't banned at the national level so you can still drive two hours and buy them legally. And whatever your stereotypes, China has plenty of scofflaws who aren't going to give something up just because the government tells them to, and its police are, very broadly, less heavy-handed as the US
I suspect banning firework sales in the US would have a significant impact.
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.
Given American policing culture, I really don't buy that the police can't show up and start arresting you for public endangerment. They may not want to, but that is different
If they did this people like me would start setting off fireworks in protest.
> Today, fireworks are outlawed in much of the US because safety
Hang on, fireworks are banned in the land of the free? But every kid should own an assault rifle?
Yes, proper fireworks are banned in much of America. Guns aren't a total free for all, either.
I realize as a Californian we may not count as "American" in this particular zeitgeist stereotype. But FWIW we have a firework ban in Nevada County that is widely respected. There are very few violations and the law is actively enforced.
The difference is we are in a no-joke dangerous fire situation and everyone recognizes it. Most people know better than to set off incendiary explosives in a forest. Anyone who shot off illegal fireworks would immediately be shamed and censured by their neighbors. I guess it's a form of commune-ism.
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.
Illinois prohibits unlicensed individuals from buying or setting off commercial grade fireworks. People buy them in Indiana. Some of the largest fireworks stores in the country sit right on the Indiana side of the state line.
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!?!?”
My opinion about how people use fireworks changed when I adopted a dog from a shelter and discovered how deeply traumatizing booms are to her. From chatting with other dog owners this seems to be common. If my neighbors could see the extent fireworks affect the same friendly, silly pup their children love greeting everyday, they would probably think twice about how they use them. We can manage the night of the 4th by traveling out of town, but the 1-2 weeks of random booms that follow the holiday are really tough for us.
> Next year I'll definitely be planning an out-of-town vacation for the 4th to some location with firework restrictions
Fireworks are not legal to shoot in pretty much any city. They are not legal in my city. That did not stop them from being used. In fact, they are going off around me the night after too
In rural places where wildfire risks are very high, firework bans are usually enforced and respected.
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...
A few years ago, on July 4th one of my mom's dogs freaked out, somehow managed to escape, and got hit by a car before my mom found her. She loved that dog, regularly attending nose work competitions with it. One of your pets getting a seizure must be harrowing for both you and the dog.
I don't light fireworks.
> one of them had a seizure
It's insane to me how much dogs are supposedly loved by such a large chunk of the pop, and yet people proceed to go apeshit with fireworks fully knowing how badly this affects them.
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.
We have three dogs of different breeds and ages, none of them handle fireworks well. They don't have seizures, but one of them turns into a quivering, shaking mess and the other two try to hide under couches and beds. I wish they were okay with it, but my wife and I have to plan our 4th around the dogs because of how they react.
My dog, now passed after a long and happy life, loved fireworks deeply. It was his favorite day of the year. He would chase and pretend to bite, bark, and run around with joy.
To be fair, I am quite certain he was an outlier.
I think you’re probably right about people’s feelings on the matter.
Though in my experience dogs that are ok with fireworks are the edge case.
I've had two dogs. One didn't like fireworks but would just turn his head towards the noise then walk over to the nearest human, and the other completely ignored them.
However! The first was a Labrador cross and the second was full lab. Breeds intended for use as gun dogs might not react to gunpowder and explosions as much.
no, 95% of dogs are not okay with it.
95% of the dogs in your home are okay with it.
this study from Psychology Today finds that 83% of dogs freak out when they hear loud noises:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/202202...
That study doesn't say "freak out". It says 83% ever showed "any fear" of fireworks, which is a huge variation. My doesn't like going outside when there are fireworks, but the sound of rain freaks him out way more.
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.
Not just dogs; more than a few humans don’t cope with loud noises of various kinds.
Good thing we didn’t have too many of those people during the revolution or we would still be part of Great Britain.
I guess you had more of those people after the revolution.
Many combat veterans react to anything resembling gunfire and explosions. And you can add drone noise to that these days.
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.
Loud action movies seem to help a friend of mine's dog who otherwise acted like fireworks were the devil incarnate.
I've never heard that, like fireworks homeopathy or something? Where did you hear that?
Here is the first non-Reddit link from Google: https://www.royalkennelclub.com/health-and-dog-care/health-d...
> Getting your dog used to loud and sudden noises can make them more relaxed and less reactive when the fireworks outside get going. There’s a good range of CDs and playlists of fireworks, storms, and loud noises available, and playing these can really help your dog desensitise to the noise.
> Start by playing the sounds at a low volume, and as your dog gets used to it you can slowly increase the volume over a period of time so that they become used to the noise. This can work especially well with young dogs and puppies, and can let you nip any problems in the bud before they even arise.
All other animals too. There are tons studies about the effects of New Year’s Eve fireworks on birds, for example, that are devastating.
Most people just don’t care about anything but themselves. It’s disgusting me to no end.
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.
Jeez, just imagine a ballistic missile hitting your neighbour's house, with no indication or alert coming ahead. I would bet a good 50€ that you'd be freaking the shit out.
I agree, but luckily my terrier apparently doesn't give a poo about fireworks. Probably nobody jad thrown fireworks at him yet. My inlaws' country dog (also a fox terrier mix with the same temperament) growls at people, especially teens, smelling of powder and barks at fireworks and motorbikes. Good thing he's not a Malinois to nip those teens and chase the motorbikes. So it'a more of a nature vs. nurture thing.
dog behavior is strictly a reflection of their owner
Given that most dogs are adopted from shelters, dog behavior is often a reflection of early upbringing. The current owner can train and teach their dog, but some behaviors and fears set in fairly early on.
Moreover, many dogs are beaten or worse when they’re young, and undoing that fear and trauma is a lifelong (for the dog) struggle.
Thus, dog behavior is far from “strictly a reflection of their [current] owner.”
Nearly all animals are afraid of fireworks:
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-devastating-effects-o...
Fireworks are a traumatic and disruptive intrusion on their environment akin to a temporary war. We (humans) already do enough traumatic and disruptive intrusions on the lives of wild animals, that doing this wholly unnecessary “just for funsies” thing is particularly cruel.
It’s rich how you’ve decided to call out “city people” as being responsible for the situation rather than the trash individuals who set off illegal fireworks.
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.
STL is famous for having a large number of folks shooting guns into the air on New Years. So much so that there are warnings to not go outside. Stay safe.
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 …
It would be more practical if major cities had "fireworks zones" with ambulances on call and perhaps some safety advice.
Fallas festival in Valencia is not your thing then. But at least I realized why there is an audiologist on every corner.
That description sounds like every New Years Eve in The Netherlands.
Few days ago a law that forbids non professionals to set off fireworks started applying... We'll see if that makes any difference.
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.
As another STL resident, fireworks are illegal everywhere in the County (not sure if St. Charles as well, but probably), and our local muni PD even sent out multiple warnings about prosecution.
But our inner ring suburb was similarly full of smoke last night and the smell of many amateur fireworks shows.
Only a few in my neighborhood, but they were quite the production. I remember firing a few bottle rockets as a kid, but these were definitely a few steps above that! Sounded like mini mortars, maybe those boxes with a bunch of shells timed to go after each other.
> Next year I'll definitely be planning an out-of-town vacation for the 4th to some location with firework restrictions.
Then like me you can just worry about whether some dipshit is going to burn your house down while you're away.
Last night some neighbors set off some illegal fireworks a few blocks from our house. My husband was out on a walk when the paramedics arrived because one of them had burned off half his face and another his arm.
Just a few days ago HN assured me nobody ever got injured from fireworks https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48711981
They really should be controlled a lot more - a nearby house was hit by some sort of Roman candle thing and completely burned down the other night.
There was at least a lot less "illegal fireworks" when people had the drive two states away to buy them.
Doesn't help in California because people buy them in Nevada and resell them. Apparently that's easier to do nowadays due to the Internet?
https://oaklandside.org/2026/07/01/illegal-fireworks-police-...
> Despite strict fireworks bans in many cities, including Oakland, they’ve become a year-round nuisance in the Bay Area. And one of the primary ways they’re spread is through the enterprising but illegal work of small-time dealers who obtain the contraband from licensed shops outside of California, sneak it into the state, and then sell hundreds and even thousands of pounds of explosives out of homes, vehicles, storage units, and even corner stores.
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.
Yeah not sure why that changed, when I was a kid you could only get sparklers and small stuff that stayed on the ground. Today I could get everything for a near-professional show if I wanted to spend the money.
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.
> actual m80's that were like a quarter stick of dynamite
Not even close.
A military M80 [0] is ~5g of flash powder, an inconsequential amount of low-explosive albeit enough to seriously injure yourself. The consumer "M80" are even weaker. These are used to simulate real explosions by the military.
The smallest standardized military demolition charge contains ~110g of TNT, in a similar small cylindrical format. There are multiple orders of magnitude difference in power between an M80 and these demolition charges.
A "quarter stick of dynamite" isn't a standard thing. But if it was, it would probably come in around 50g of TNT equivalent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-80_(explosive)
You could sure make decent explosives with OTC fireworks though - in the early 90s we would buy hundreds of those whistling fireworks, hammer them, cut the bottoms off, and then fill various bottles with all the powder. We made a shockwave with one of our makeshift bombs and decided we should probably stop after that.
In most states you can go buy all the tannerite you want. That's an actual explosion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VaLtf_EIVQ
The old school whistling fireworks were often based on picrate chemistry. Picrates famously have the ability when burned to hover between normally deflagration and true detonation; the whistling is a side effect of this. One of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history (see below) was a picrate explosion. These aren’t used anymore for safety reasons; they don’t have a great stability profile and picrates are true high-explosives.
Over the years they have found alternatives for and phased out most high-explosives used in fireworks. Many high-explosives will just deflagrate/burn but can spontaneously detonate with considerable power if the conditions are right, which makes them dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
Have advances in explosives, fuses and quality control made fireworks safer in the last 40 years?
Or perhaps the safety improvements are offset by sellers now offering bigger fireworks (either because those are now actually safe, or just because of a general hedonic improvement).
Either way I would be interested in reading more about this. At the least it's a counterpoint to what happened with illegal drugs which seem to have become more dangerous as a result of regulation and bans.
M80s were more like 1/8th of a stick, I think. My uncle bought quarter sticks of dynamite one time. Wow. Quite a bit bigger and louder than an M80, and M80s were LOUD! My dad's cousin blew off most of his thumb and parts of several fingers with one. It was old, and it had a flash fuse. He was planning to toss it, but it went off instantly. (Don't hold fireworks when you are lighting them.)
A couple of years ago my brother got some flat triangles from a guy on the side of the road. First thing I've seen in years that was like an M80. We put a flat soccer ball over one, and it went 50 feet in the air. Very fun.
> 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.
Yep. I volunteered for a real fireworks show in California once. The size of the mortars was… so much bigger than the stuff I was used to seeing people get at fireworks shops.
Along with the reminder from the safety coordinator that each firework was capable of completely talking your arm or leg off. The “consumer” grade fireworks aren’t capable of that, although they’re still dangerous.
I'm not sure if being homemade was the reason, but I just heard about a medflight for somebody hit by a homemade firework.
I say this as somebody with a book on how to make them, but I've always been a bit too scared to try.
Being homemade is (almost) never in and of itself a reason. A lack of knowledge or judgment certainly can be. However often the motivation for DIY is to circumvent regulations to go big but of course one of the primary reasons for such regulations is that the associated consequences when things go wrong are dire. The story could well have turned out the same even if the item had been purchased from a reputable vendor. There's a very good reason the professional shows use barges or large fields and set up a huge exclusion zone around them.
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.
Some places, I’m pretty sure they just waive the explosives license too.
Capitalism. Get rich or die trying.
Rather than regulate fireworks out of existence wouldn't it be better to fix the problem at the root? Why do we permit such fire prone housing to be built just to save a few dollars?
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.
Also, to add to this what we’ve learned about fires and houses is that.. it’s less about how the house is built.
Whether a house catches fire or not is almost always due to the landscaping, maintenance, and roof of the house.
Traditional house siding and roof will resist flames and fires. However, if an overgrown bush catches fire it will cause enough heat to the side of the house to break down that protection and set it aflame. Same with leaves in gutters, etc.
No, it really was a question. Please don't inject your own biases and assumptions when interpreting my words.
It seems that you've invented a false dichotomy where the only options are wood frame or brick and concrete and then assumed me to be advocating for the latter. I was not. There are a variety of ways in which wood frame structures can be made less prone to external sources of fire. At least a few jurisdictions in california have adopted some of these methods into code as of late.
My question implied judgment to an extent, sure, but it was also genuine in that I truly do not understand why we as a society are not more proactive about these things. It isn't limited to fires either. In the face of all sorts of natural disasters we consistently optimize regulations for cost rather than safety. Consider the myriad examples of structures being built in flood prone areas.
What alternative do you propose?
Off topic but I went to a local town’s medium-sized professional fireworks show this weekend and there were none of those small flash really loud fireworks that shake you to the core. Not even in the grand finale. Oddly they are what I enjoy most. Have they gone out of fashion or do they mess too much with pets?
My town of <1k population had their fireworks tonight. I want to say at least half of the fireworks rattled your bones and jimmied your organs.
There are such a wide variety of fireworks available now there is probably less need for those specifically. The show I was at still had enough loud booms to set off dozens of cars' alarms repeatedly during the twenty minutes.
I believe those are called "salutes".
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.
You mean mortars ?
They sure haven't gone out of fashion on the streets of SF. My ears were ringing!
I miss those too. I remember as a kid one display that shot a bunch of really bright white flare-like fireworks that were blinding and hung in the sky followed by dozens of those small but loud ones and it was memorable.
Flying into London on November 5 a decade or so ago I was struck by how similar things looked to WW2 bombing run photographs, except it was in colour.
A moment of pause.
(The Australian War memorial has a museum with the nose of a Lancaster bomber, and they run footage inside it (or a mock up, they have a lot of stuff) projected onto the floor and forward view taken by bombing observation film crews during the raids on Germany)
This is more of an issue with operating during the week before and after 4th of July in Chicago. As I'm writing fireworks are going off.
Fireworks (display) kinds are illegal in Illinois and there are absolutely no fireworks shot off the before and after 4th of july. Nothing happens nothing to see here.
What is sad is that a few irresponsible people are always what end up ruining something that most can manage to do without endangering others. Growing up it was a yearly thing where my family would go somewhere safe away from public and set off fireworks.
Fireworks are a lot of fun. Sure not everyone's thing but many enjoy them and can manage to use basic safety and not endanger anyone.
I just can't believe a firework going off right at an airport was not intentional. I believe someone was most likely thinking "I'm gonna lite this off right by a plane for all to see my awesome show!". Not trying to hit the jet but rather just look at me people isn't this awesome!? No it is not.
This is the type of thing that ends up getting fireworks banned or more controlled for the rest of us.
Reminds me of the idiot who flew his drone over an active forest fire while crews were actively fighting it causing the helicopters or water bombers to have to disengage the fire until the drone was gone. Then drone rules get tightened for the average guy just wanting to have fun responsibly.
Should ideally have an exclusion no fireworks/drones zone near airports esp. on such a day IDK that is just me.
Delta said Sunday a post-flight inspection showed no damage to the aircraft.
Not surprising, as a firework is designed to disintegrate and the outer surface of a plane is not flammable. Bird strikes are probably a higher risk.
Many fireworks are designed to explode at altitude. The biggest risk is probably if the firework is ingested into an engine (also a major risk for bird strikes).
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.
Even small bird strikes are usually a non-event, as the engines are designed to withstand them (there's a very well-known YouTube video of frozen chickens being fired into one, and those are already a lot bigger and harder than most birds they'll encounter.) It's the big ones that make the news.
99% of them also don’t have enough explosive force to do more than damage a hand.
What about the 1%?
Clearly the plane wasn’t hit by one, eh, or we’d have an entirely different headline.
Am I the only one who thinks the risks are worth the reward? People are celebrating, kids are having fun. Yes a few people blow their hands off, but are we going to remove everything, one by one, in the name of safety?
Nope, completely with you on this. The logical conclusion of banning everything dangerous is everything in existence being banned. There are many things people do that I think are dumb or dangerous but that doesn't mean I think they should be banned from doing them.
Not true. I support anyone doing anything that is harmful to themselves. I don't support doing things that are harmful to others.
I have a beautiful memory from a summer night long ago, in Barceloneta on the evening of the summer solstice—the festival of Saint Joan [0]. I didn’t know it was coming, which was its own special sort of astonishment… walked in to eat dinner, walked out to a mountain of furniture on fire in the intersection, air thick with gunpowder smoke, bands of youths firing Roman candles at one other…
The specific image that comes to mind, though—I remember dozens upon dozens of ambulances lined up at the ready along the waterfront, their crews hanging out enjoying the madness until they would be called upon.
Having been raised in pretty cautious circles, that image struck me: the powers-that-be knew some proportion of bad stuff would happen. I figured that meant they’d “just make a law against it.” Instead of trying to stop it, though, they focused on preparedness and timely response.
Since then, of course, I’ve learned that The Law has a lot less raw power than I’d imagined against tradition and popular will…
Since then I’ve accepted as creed that the best and most human parts of life reach their most salient in the moments of paradox between principles. “Avoid safety risks” is correct, “living fully requires accepting risks” is also correct.
[0] https://www.barcelona-tourist-guide.com/en/events/sant-joan/...
I’m with you. I shoot off small fireworks for my kids and my immediate neighbor on our quiet street, and we have a neighbor a few doors down who invariably calls the cops. This has been going on since the 2000s when she moved in. If I’m fined, I just pay it.
You are above the laws if you have the money. Wonderful teaching for your kids. The world knows where that is leading.
Come on, it’s not a choice between complete anarchy and complete restriction.
It is very, very fair for society to be like “hm I think X activity is easy to abuse in a way that hurts innocent bystanders,” and then limits the activity to people with licenses and training or things like that.
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?
I don’t care if it’s just your own life at risk. But 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. The people most likely to do this shit in the streets have no clue what they’re doing.
> 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".
What if there was one day a year where it was expected for people to speed through your neighborhood at 20 over the speed limit, which ends up with a bunch of people driving into houses with their vehicles?
It's not really the fireworks that is the issue. It's the alcohol, drugs, and overall attitude towards a dangerous activity. It's a bit different than a random mishap or whatnot.
> What if there was one day a year where it was expected for people to speed through your neighborhood at 20 over the speed limit, which ends up with a bunch of people driving into houses with their vehicles?
You mean All Saints Day (1st of November)? No, thousands of drunk drivers taking dozens of innocent lives and hurting hundreds more, year after year like a clockwork, is still not a reason to ban trucks, or any other car type. Or to cancel All Saints Day, if that's what you're implying.
Stealing electricity is already illegal. Driving a truck into your home could be a genuine accident, but it's more likely that alcohol was involved first (which is illegal with driving).
Do you think it’s legal to shoot a firework at someone’s house?
> Stealing electricity is already illegal.
So is shooting a house with fireworks. I'm against a general ban on doingelectrical work yourself, and against a general ban on fireworks.
> 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.
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.
> Obviously how you use the thing is important.
Is there a way to use large fireworks in a residential neighborhood that isn’t “light them on fire to cause an explosion”?
Large? When fireworks within the ATF limits for unlicensed individuals are used according to manufacturer instructions they explode on the ground or in the air in a way that does not endanger the surrounding structures. Of course you can't safely light them off in a narrow alley between three story buildings. Anyone doing that (or similarly foolish things) was behaving recklessly to begin with.
>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.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume you don't believe in driver licenses and speed limits either
I have nuanced views on both.
I am gonna go ahead and assume theres no freedom you wouldn't give away for safety if the government justified it in the right way.
It's not that simple.
Rules do not necessarily reduce freedom, they can in fact even provide more freedom on the longer term, when the system finds a new balance.
The difficulty of course is to find the proper rules and evaluate these effects from current system state.
"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" was supposed to be a comically evil statement in Shrek
You're not the only one. There are few things I hate more than safetyists.
I am fine with the professional fireworks shows but people setting fireworks inside residential areas, in all hours of night, for weeks during summer is just people being massive douchebags.
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.
Like 10 people died in my state on the 4th. A few were not directly involved in celebrations but were just doing their own thing.
Does that really sound reasonable to you?
Died of what?
25,000 people die in my state every year, 10 in a day would be miraculously low.
Get rid of fireworks, replace with drone shows. Sick of fireworks and the resulting pollution that comes with them.
The amount of downvoted posts here is quite indicative.
When clowns are in charge the country looks like a circus.
Fun fact: “Midway” is also the name of an American manufacturer of video and pinball games, and a Pacific theater of war in World War II, the most important victory in US Naval history. (The airport took this name in July 1949, according to the English Wikipedia.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20080414001228if_/http://www.fly...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cup_Soccer_(pinball)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Tigers_(video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampage_(video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day_(ar...
It’s also the name of a district/neighborhood of San Diego which takes its name from Midway Drive, particularly where it intersects with Rosecrans St.
Okay, “Midway” is a lot of things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway
Midway's most famous and controversial game is, without a doubt, Mortal Kombat.
MK was the most controversial, but Midway was also the US manufacturer of Space Invaders and Pac-Man.
I loved playing with fireworks as a kid, and surprisingly have all appendages and senses intact, I even considered pyro as a job - so I definitely get the appeal.
I just think it's time that we left it to the professionals. Unless you are engaging in science or physics, I don't see the value in letting them off yourself.
~~It's also weird that America's birthday is celebrated using a Chinese invention.~~ Edit: bad point, I stand corrected.
> It's also weird that America's birthday is celebrated using a Chinese invention.
Not really. America is an amalgamation of all the countries and cultures that emigrated to it. It’s one of the best things about it.
That’s such a strange thing to say. Should we only use things invented in the last 300 years on the 4th of July?
Now I wonder who invented wheat, or sugar (used to make cake)?
Also hotdogs are made with Wiener sausages, which are from...
> Now I wonder who invented [...] sugar (used to make cake)?
If you're talking about the refined product, then India. If you're talking about the plant, then New Guinea and Taiwan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sugar
beef or pork if you’re lucky
In the production of these hotdogs no animals were harmed!
I tried tofu dogs for the first time on the grill, they were pretty good.
Das Auge ist (man) mit.
Austria! nothing bad came from Austria
The people of Frankfurt would like to have a word!
No more using the English language, either.
You mean since it was invented by Indians, Germans and the French?
Maybe leaving it to professionals would make more sense, but the majority of people aren’t in favor of it. I’m not even in favor of it and I had a couple fireworks bursting right outside my balcony last night. I was on the balcony and a ducked, though I would have been fine if I didn’t. Maybe require a brief safety training before purchasing? I’m not sure exactly what is going to reduce stupid behavior with explosives.
You literally just explained the value.
https://youtu.be/YPX__g3LpUY?t=9
Fell free to leave it to the professionals then. That has always been your right.
> I just think it's time that we left it to the professionals.
Pulling up the ladder behind you, eh? So nice of you to think of the children.
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?
I think consensual duels should still be legal. Numerous states have laws about mutual combat where it is perfectly legal to beat the fuck out of each other.
Fireworks for me, but not for thee.
I see way too many trashy people setting off commercial grade illegal fireworks in the middle of crowded cities and neighborhoods. It is incredibly disruptive and damaging. Vets are traumatized. Dogs are traumatized. And sleep deprived parents have to repeatedly put babies back to sleep. It is insane that police do not enforce laws against these criminals.
> It is insane that police do not enforce laws against these criminals.
Not that I've known a ton of people who work for local police departments, but the majority of the ones I have known are exactly the type of people who are likely to partake in illegal residential fireworks around the 4th of July.
Suck it up. You chose to live in a city.
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.
Plenty of places people can move without others around. I might feel a bit of empathy for someone living surrounded by farmland and having a city built up around them, but that is incredibly rare and even in that case that only makes their property far more valuable to sell and move to another cheap rural area. If someone moves into an expanding suburb or right on the edge of a city and complains about the city expanding, zero empathy, they should of thought about that when they bought the property.
Unfortunately it's not just dense cities, and all it takes is 1 neighbor to ruin your night.
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.
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.
A bigot is born
"Population changes" and "anti social" being codewords for anyone not in your small group of acceptable people who follow your rules and share your priorities. You were there first so why can't you be the boss?
Laws are laws, and they still exist. Being anti social means acting in ways that affect others in society negatively. That’s what setting off fireworks late at night is. Yes, they need to follow OUR rules because we live in a society. And they should share my priorities. If they were doing things that ONLY affect them, that’s different. But we’re talking about waking everyone else up. Spare me your virtue signaling.
we have multifelons (+10 arrests) running around and committing new crimes -often killing- in nearly all major urban centers.
What makes you think police are going to pay heed to teens with heavy pyrotecnic ordinance ?
And even if they did, would the DA prosecute ?
Anti-aircraft artillery...