4 ms·
Valid 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
by _tulpa 9y ago
Valid 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.