3 ms·
> As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical
by alex_lav 3y ago
> As a generality, "unsafe voyage" is a reasonable thing to outlaw. Morons will need search & rescue on the CG's taxpayer-supplied dime, then maybe need medical care at public expense, too.
Of all the stupid things regular people can do to add strain/cost to the united states' social systems, "unsafe voyage" seems pretty low on the list, both in cost and frequency. I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue.
> Plus too-trusting friends & family who are along for the ride on their SS Davey Jones, collisions with other boats, cleaning up the wreckage and oil slicks, etc., etc.
I am not arguing that unsafe voyage is a bad idea. I am arguing that it's out of character for this country to ban a specific bad idea due to safety.
- p_l 3y agoGenerally it's about limited, numerically, rescue resources that might then be unable to respond to a more serious eventm
- fineIllregister 3y ago> I'd guess that injuries as a result of accidental gun discharge and/or fireworks easily 10x-100x yearly spend on search and rescue. Fireworks are illegal in many states. Guns are regulated and there's widespread efforts for more.
- alex_lav 3y agoFireworks are universally illegal in a single state. Google it.
- fineIllregister 3y ago"Universally" makes that statement useless. Vermont only allows sparklers. That is practically a ban on fireworks in the context of this discussion. Many other states have strong restrictions, partially for sake of reducing injuries (and noise and fire risk). And there is constant advocacy for stronger restrictions/bans. The point is, we do restrict people's actions on fireworks and guns in order to prevent larger costs. They are not a counter example for why the Coast Guard should have done nothing in this case.