3 ms·
Why should it be? It's not like poeple don't understand the risk - especially by the time they get to the point where they can actually do it. What about all t
by _tulpa 9y ago
Why should it be?
It's not like poeple don't understand the risk - especially by the time they get to the point where they can actually do it. What about all the other 'extreme' sports where death and/or serious injury is a possible outcome?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago> Why should it be? Because someone one has to clean up the mess. And it wastes the coroners time. I'm not saying I agree that it should be banned, but those seem like two obvious angles.
- saiya-jin 9y agobut where do you cut the line of acceptable? one out of endless examples - what about forumla 1/indycar racing? utterly useless and highly unecological activity, pushing technology and people to its limits. sounds faimilar? is it more acceptable because you own a car?
- icebraining 9y agoThey'd die eventually anyway, so the coroners time doesn't seem to wasted, just anticipated. Cleanup the mess is a valid point, but only justifies posting a bond at most.
- _tulpa 9y agoValid concerns, sure. But how is banning it a good solution? How do you even enforce a ban on a group of people who are okay risking their lives for fun? Maybe instead you get them contributing to a local SAR organization. Maybe they have to get insurance. Or something else more constructive and less ham-fisted than just making it illegal. Why is banning stuff so high on everyone's list of solutions to problems that don't really affect them?
- dkersten 9y ago> problems that don't really affect them? Perhaps because: > And it wastes the coroners time. means it does affect them (the tax payers)? Personally, I think as few things as possible should be banned/restricted. If things directly impact other peoples lives, then sure, but if its indirect or minimal, then perhaps not. Its a difficult balance though (but in general, I'm in the "the less government involvement in the peoples lives the better" camp).
- _tulpa 9y ago> means it does affect them (the tax payers)? Okay sure. but... > About 10 to 20 die world wide in about a population of 1000 or so active jumpers. How is 10-20 peoples worth of coronor time worldwide an appreciable number for taxpayers. Furthermore is it even remotely comparable to the cost of trying to enforce a ban, which would presumably also be funded by tax payers. My point is more that you've at least thought about it a little, unlike the OP of this thread.
- c3833174 9y agoPeople get injured all the time while just walking/climbing and have to be helicoptered out, one august week in the alps has probably enough deaths to cover yearly wingsuits deaths.
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y agoI agree on someone cleaning up the mess. But surely this is a pretty easy case for the coroner?
- Zigurd 9y agoI could list 100 things people should not do that are less flamboyant but waste more life and more resources. I'm not saying "Give up on reducing dangerous behaviors." I am saying there are more effective priorities.
- bartread 9y agoQuite: cigarettes, alcohol, bad driving, and cooking whilst drunk and passing out with the stove still on[1] kill way more people annually than BASE jumping and I don't see anybody banning them. [1] I'm obviously not 100% sure about this last one but it seems likely.
- Zigurd 9y agoShaking the vending machine until it falls on you. Not sure if that should be ameliorated or not. It could be a key element of human evolution.