... such as you were, Pete, should have recourse against the person(s) who caused the injury (whether the fireworks were professionally produced or not).

On the other hand, I agree with the primary point Travis is making (and suspect that you do, too, deep in your Libertarian heart! ).

It is not (or at least shouldn't be) the government's job to try to sanitize the world of all risk of injury or harm. "Safer" doesn't necessarily mean "better".

Freedom to act in one's own best interests and to accept personal responsibility for (and the consequence of) one's own actions is, to me, a much better standard by which to be governed.

The old saw about freedom to swing your fist (it ends at the other guy's nose) provides a good (if simplistic) example. From a legal point of view, there are two ways to approach the problem:

One would say, "It is illegal to swing your fist and punch another person in the nose."

The other would say, "It is illegal to swing your fist."

Both, of course, would accomplish the purpose of proscribing the punch in the nose. The second approach, however, does so by imposing a far greater restriction than is necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose of the law.

In essence, the fireworks thing is a similar example of "punishing" (by restricting their freedom) the vast majority of people, who would otherwise act responsibly, to prevent the irresponsible acts of a few.

----- jim o\-S