Thanks for the photo. Ignoring the obvious built-up areas in that photo, and the road that was hit resulting in multiple deaths, I see a golf course, I see houses, I see farm buildings, I see playing pitches. These are not all left vacant all the time, so there could be people in any one of these places which could be hit if something goes wrong (for one of a number of reasons listed already). So yes, there is the potential for multiple casualties (which was the threshold you set).
Do you want me to post a photo of the sea?
I don't see any houses or buildings in the sea part of your photo. I can imagine it's likely there are boats there - these could be advised of plans for an air display.
The percentage of land that is "urbanised" and the definitions that you include for it is irrelevant to this point. Yes, nobody is arguing for air displays above city centres. What I'm saying is that there's still the potential for multiple casualties where stunts are performed over land.
Ultimately, an investigation will show why the plane crashed, but the reason why we are discussing multiple fatalities is because it was performing and crashed on land - in this case on a busy road.
Are you seriously saying that because there is a golf course and farm building, they shouldnt be flying around that area!?
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
But what do you mean about willing to accept risk? I mean, I get a train every morning where there is potential risk due to something going wrong but that is a necessity and any mistake is out of control as trains have to be run. In this case though, the rules mean that the people who have actually chosen to attend are at the limited risk as you can't do stunts over the event itself, but the people who had nothing to do at the event were at risk when he attempted to do that stunt over a busy road.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
But there is a big audience of people who love airshows. I tell you what its a good job no one took the, shut down football grounds 'I'm sure we can move on' following the Hillsborough, Bradford and Heysel tragedies.
All seater stadiums have been installed and football safety has improved enormously.
Improvements have been made because of such tragedies.
Air shows shouldn't be near residential areas or roads. That would be an improvement in safety. It's surely that simple???
Thanks for the photo. Ignoring the obvious built-up areas in that photo, and the road that was hit resulting in multiple deaths, I see a golf course, I see houses, I see farm buildings, I see playing pitches. These are not all left vacant all the time, so there could be people in any one of these places which could be hit if something goes wrong (for one of a number of reasons listed already). So yes, there is the potential for multiple casualties (which was the threshold you set).
Do you want me to post a photo of the sea?
I don't see any houses or buildings in the sea part of your photo. I can imagine it's likely there are boats there - these could be advised of plans for an air display.
The percentage of land that is "urbanised" and the definitions that you include for it is irrelevant to this point. Yes, nobody is arguing for air displays above city centres. What I'm saying is that there's still the potential for multiple casualties where stunts are performed over land.
Ultimately, an investigation will show why the plane crashed, but the reason why we are discussing multiple fatalities is because it was performing and crashed on land - in this case on a busy road.
You sound like nothing short of banning all air shows will make you happy. Even your suggestion of keeping the sea clear of naval traffic when an air show is on misses the point completely.
That photo appears to cover hundreds of square miles of land. You are saying that the air display should not have taken place anywhere above that, even above the vast expanses of fields, because of the off-chance the plane goes off course and crashes somewhere populated. By that logic an air display above the sea would need to be miles away from the coast on the off-chance it goes out of control and crashes onto the land and, by default, England's completely urbanised land. Which would defeat the point because no one would be able to see the stunt.
Your posts demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge of aviation and aeronautics. I don't speak as someone who even goes to air-shows or cares about them really, just someone who has an understanding of risk and statistics.
Thanks for the photo. Ignoring the obvious built-up areas in that photo, and the road that was hit resulting in multiple deaths, I see a golf course, I see houses, I see farm buildings, I see playing pitches. These are not all left vacant all the time, so there could be people in any one of these places which could be hit if something goes wrong (for one of a number of reasons listed already). So yes, there is the potential for multiple casualties (which was the threshold you set).
Do you want me to post a photo of the sea?
I don't see any houses or buildings in the sea part of your photo. I can imagine it's likely there are boats there - these could be advised of plans for an air display.
The percentage of land that is "urbanised" and the definitions that you include for it is irrelevant to this point. Yes, nobody is arguing for air displays above city centres. What I'm saying is that there's still the potential for multiple casualties where stunts are performed over land.
Ultimately, an investigation will show why the plane crashed, but the reason why we are discussing multiple fatalities is because it was performing and crashed on land - in this case on a busy road.
Are you seriously saying that because there is a golf course and farm building, they shouldnt be flying around that area!?
Interestingly enough, the golf course point actually hinders his argument - Harrison Ford crash-landed his plane on a golf course because the likelihood that he would injure another person was extremely small, it is all about pilots knowing the best places to crash their plane in their training. Why on Earth the pilot did not steer it away from the roads when there are dozens of square miles of empty space either side of the road is something we need to wait for the investigation to uncover.
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS over populated areas. FLYING POPULATED AREAS IS FINE .
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to B )
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
The comparison by SHG wasn't between the two activities, it was between the affect that banning one had on the livelyhoods of those who were involved, as you well know
Thanks for the photo. Ignoring the obvious built-up areas in that photo, and the road that was hit resulting in multiple deaths, I see a golf course, I see houses, I see farm buildings, I see playing pitches. These are not all left vacant all the time, so there could be people in any one of these places which could be hit if something goes wrong (for one of a number of reasons listed already). So yes, there is the potential for multiple casualties (which was the threshold you set).
Do you want me to post a photo of the sea?
I don't see any houses or buildings in the sea part of your photo. I can imagine it's likely there are boats there - these could be advised of plans for an air display.
The percentage of land that is "urbanised" and the definitions that you include for it is irrelevant to this point. Yes, nobody is arguing for air displays above city centres. What I'm saying is that there's still the potential for multiple casualties where stunts are performed over land.
Ultimately, an investigation will show why the plane crashed, but the reason why we are discussing multiple fatalities is because it was performing and crashed on land - in this case on a busy road.
Are you seriously saying that because there is a golf course and farm building, they shouldnt be flying around that area!?
Interestingly enough, the golf course point actually hinders his argument - Harrison Ford crash-landed his plane on a golf course because the likelihood that he would injure another person was extremely small, it is all about pilots knowing the best places to crash their plane in their training.
Why don't you post a photo of the area around Penmar Golf Course in Santa Monica? Obviously, in that case, the golf course is the least populated area.
In the case of the loops, you could not say for certain that there would not be multiple casualties (again, your threshold) if it hit any of the things I mentioned. Of course a pilot should try to avoid these things, but for whatever reason, the pilot did hit those cars and the crash did kill those people.
But I guess it's some people's livelihoods and if the displays were out over the sea, they wouldn't be able to earn as much money.
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
The comparison by SHG wasn't between the two activities, it was between the affect that banning one had on the livelyhoods of those who were involved, as you well know
Bear-baiting wasn't banned on public safety grounds, it was banned on animal cruelty grounds so there was an argument for ending the livelihoods of people who were practicing animal cruelty, whereas there is less of an argument for ending the livelihoods of people whose industry has a very tiny risk of causing death (even tinier than a lot of other industries that we allow to keep going on as the economic benefits outweigh the number of deaths caused). It was an obviously stupid argument, I didn't think it needed to be spelt out but there we go.
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
The comparison by SHG wasn't between the two activities, it was between the affect that banning one had on the livelyhoods of those who were involved, as you well know
Bear-baiting wasn't banned on public safety grounds, it was banned on animal cruelty grounds so there was an argument for ending the livelihoods of people who were practicing animal cruelty, whereas there is less of an argument for ending the livelihoods of people whose industry has a very tiny risk of causing death (even tinier than a lot of other industries that we allow to keep going on as the economic benefits outweigh the number of deaths caused). It was an obviously stupid argument, I didn't think it needed to be spelt out but there we go.
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
But what do you mean about willing to accept risk? I mean, I get a train every morning where there is potential risk due to something going wrong but that is a necessity and any mistake is out of control as trains have to be run. In this case though, the rules mean that the people who have actually chosen to attend are at the limited risk as you can't do stunts over the event itself, but the people who had nothing to do at the event were at risk when he attempted to do that stunt over a busy road.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
But there is a big audience of people who love airshows. I tell you what its a good job no one took the, shut down football grounds 'I'm sure we can move on' following the Hillsborough, Bradford and Heysel tragedies.
All seater stadiums have been installed and football safety has improved enormously.
Improvements have been made because of such tragedies.
Air shows shouldn't be near residential areas or roads. That would be an improvement in safety. It's surely that simple???
A pointless post my response was to shutting air shows down.
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
The comparison by SHG wasn't between the two activities, it was between the affect that banning one had on the livelyhoods of those who were involved, as you well know
Bear-baiting wasn't banned on public safety grounds, it was banned on animal cruelty grounds so there was an argument for ending the livelihoods of people who were practicing animal cruelty, whereas there is less of an argument for ending the livelihoods of people whose industry has a very tiny risk of causing death (even tinier than a lot of other industries that we allow to keep going on as the economic benefits outweigh the number of deaths caused). It was an obviously stupid argument, I didn't think it needed to be spelt out but there we go.
To quote Lord Melchet you really are a twisty turny thing. My point about bear baiting was to make the point that no doubt lots of people lost their livlihood as a result of that particular "industry" being banned. It was still the correct decision despite the unwanted consequence of people losing their jobs. I never said it was about public safety. It was about making the correct decision despite that decision having some negative impact.
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
The comparison by SHG wasn't between the two activities, it was between the affect that banning one had on the livelyhoods of those who were involved, as you well know
Bear-baiting wasn't banned on public safety grounds, it was banned on animal cruelty grounds so there was an argument for ending the livelihoods of people who were practicing animal cruelty, whereas there is less of an argument for ending the livelihoods of people whose industry has a very tiny risk of causing death (even tinier than a lot of other industries that we allow to keep going on as the economic benefits outweigh the number of deaths caused). It was an obviously stupid argument, I didn't think it needed to be spelt out but there we go.
To quote Lord Melchet you really are a twisty turny thing. My point about bear baiting was to make the point that no doubt lots of people lost their livlihood as a result of that particular "industry" being banned. It was still the correct decision despite the unwanted consequence of people losing their jobs. I never said it was about public safety. It was about making the correct decision despite that decision having some negative impact.
That's what I thought you meant an all SHG, I didn't think it needed to be spelt out but there we go. ; )
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
The comparison by SHG wasn't between the two activities, it was between the affect that banning one had on the livelyhoods of those who were involved, as you well know
Bear-baiting wasn't banned on public safety grounds, it was banned on animal cruelty grounds so there was an argument for ending the livelihoods of people who were practicing animal cruelty, whereas there is less of an argument for ending the livelihoods of people whose industry has a very tiny risk of causing death (even tinier than a lot of other industries that we allow to keep going on as the economic benefits outweigh the number of deaths caused). It was an obviously stupid argument, I didn't think it needed to be spelt out but there we go.
To quote Lord Melchet you really are a twisty turny thing. My point about bear baiting was to make the point that no doubt lots of people lost their livlihood as a result of that particular "industry" being banned. It was still the correct decision despite the unwanted consequence of people losing their jobs. I never said it was about public safety. It was about making the correct decision despite that decision having some negative impact.
And as I said there are other industries that society allow to continue despite the incidence of deaths, so it is not necessarily the correct decision to ban air shows.
It might be good if the thread title could be changed, but they'll probably want to sink it soon. I don't think anyone is arguing for air shows to be banned.
It ain't got anything with flying, I think the thing that most antis are wanting banned is AEROBATICS populated areas.FLYING IS FINE over land.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
The most bizarre comparison was comparing stunt planes to bear-baiting.
The comparison by SHG wasn't between the two activities, it was between the affect that banning one had on the livelyhoods of those who were involved, as you well know
Bear-baiting wasn't banned on public safety grounds, it was banned on animal cruelty grounds so there was an argument for ending the livelihoods of people who were practicing animal cruelty, whereas there is less of an argument for ending the livelihoods of people whose industry has a very tiny risk of causing death (even tinier than a lot of other industries that we allow to keep going on as the economic benefits outweigh the number of deaths caused). It was an obviously stupid argument, I didn't think it needed to be spelt out but there we go.
To quote Lord Melchet you really are a twisty turny thing. My point about bear baiting was to make the point that no doubt lots of people lost their livlihood as a result of that particular "industry" being banned. It was still the correct decision despite the unwanted consequence of people losing their jobs. I never said it was about public safety. It was about making the correct decision despite that decision having some negative impact.
And as I said there are other industries that society allow to continue despite the incidence of deaths, so it is not necessarily the correct decision to ban air shows.
Not many industries that are for the sake of 6 seconds entertainment vrs 20 deaths
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
But what do you mean about willing to accept risk? I mean, I get a train every morning where there is potential risk due to something going wrong but that is a necessity and any mistake is out of control as trains have to be run. In this case though, the rules mean that the people who have actually chosen to attend are at the limited risk as you can't do stunts over the event itself, but the people who had nothing to do at the event were at risk when he attempted to do that stunt over a busy road.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
Willing to accept the risks of everyday living is what I said. Like when you get home on Friday night you have more chance of being dead on Monday morning than winning the lottery regardless of what you avoid doing.
Banning air displays will not improve your chances of surviving to Monday any more than banning bin lorries on the grounds they kill people when they get out of control.
Why don't we ban vehicles from using roads near to where people are walking? Or ban people crossing roads used by vehicles? We would save thousands of lives over 50 years that don't even make the inside pages let alone the headlines. Road deaths caused by drivers having accidents are acceptable because we are all drivers and nothing can stand in the way of our freedom to drive.
Infinitely fewer deaths are caused by pilots having accidents but because fewer of us are pilots or air display enthusiasts, it's OK to ban it if the majority say so. It's about assuaging human reaction to public tragedy, not a rational idea to save lives.
But the important word I used is necessity, cars are needed and used by most people therefore the safety restrictions are constantly being improved: Changes to driving tests, harsher punishments on DUI, more awareness as well as the structure of the car itself. With the amount of people who have a car, there is always the risk of an accident with a moron but everything has been done to restrict this risk. This is very different to an old plane (which purposefully doesn't have the same standards as recent aircraft) doing stunts over a pedestrian area for the enjoyment of a couple of hundred people. I'm pretty sure a lot less people die from cars than they did 50 years ago yet there is still the same consistency in air show accidents over time. The other difference with this is that the easy solution to potentially save lives is to move it out to sea where the risk is limited to the pilots who wish to do that whereas that cannot be done with driving. There have been a lot fewer deaths by the running of the bulls than there is at airshows yet I still think that is ridiculous.
It might be good if the thread title could be changed, but they'll probably want to sink it soon. I don't think anyone is arguing for air shows to be banned.
If the investigation throws up that it was entirely pilot error and that he did not follow regulations then this would be the same issue you would have with any civilian/privately operated aircraft. This could have happened with any air vehicle, the fact that it happened at an air show is raising false equivalency.
If the investigation throws up that it was entirely pilot error and that he did not follow regulations then this would be the same issue you would have with any civilian/privately operated aircraft. This could have happened with any air vehicle, the fact that it happened at an air show is raising false equivalency.
Regardless. The authorities are banning aerobatics over land for vintage aircraft.
If the investigation throws up that it was entirely pilot error and that he did not follow regulations then this would be the same issue you would have with any civilian/privately operated aircraft. This could have happened with any air vehicle, the fact that it happened at an air show is raising false equivalency.
Regardless. The authorities are banning aerobatics over land for vintage aircraft.
That's good, that's why I said leave it to the experts.
Now what are the regulations on stopping bears from flying over roads?
If the investigation throws up that it was entirely pilot error and that he did not follow regulations then this would be the same issue you would have with any civilian/privately operated aircraft. This could have happened with any air vehicle, the fact that it happened at an air show is raising false equivalency.
For me it's two entities; 1. Flying 2. Aerobatics .....and it is vital that the two are seperated.
If a magician done a trick using gas bottles in front of a live audience and it went wrong killing 20 people, would you agree that the trick should be banned, or at least in front of a live audience?
If the investigation throws up that it was entirely pilot error and that he did not follow regulations then this would be the same issue you would have with any civilian/privately operated aircraft. This could have happened with any air vehicle, the fact that it happened at an air show is raising false equivalency.
Regardless. The authorities are banning aerobatics over land for vintage aircraft.
That's good, that's why I said leave it to the experts.
Now what are the regulations on stopping bears from flying over roads?
Comments
Improvements have been made because of such tragedies.
Air shows shouldn't be near residential areas or roads. That would be an improvement in safety. It's surely that simple???
That photo appears to cover hundreds of square miles of land. You are saying that the air display should not have taken place anywhere above that, even above the vast expanses of fields, because of the off-chance the plane goes off course and crashes somewhere populated. By that logic an air display above the sea would need to be miles away from the coast on the off-chance it goes out of control and crashes onto the land and, by default, England's completely urbanised land. Which would defeat the point because no one would be able to see the stunt.
Your posts demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge of aviation and aeronautics. I don't speak as someone who even goes to air-shows or cares about them really, just someone who has an understanding of risk and statistics.
Going from Fiiish's picture; Yeah, there's loads of land to come down in, but it's come down square on the road. This all says to me that even with so much land to come down in, a major accident has still occured.
As for comparing planes doing aerobatics over busy roads to driving a car or bin lorries, wtf is all that about.
IMO, fair comparisons would be
Normal driving TO Normal flying (Calculated risk that most are willing to take to get from A to B )
Aerobatics over busy roads TO Racing a motor at 100mph down Charlton Church Lane (Do come on)
Edited Aerobatics NOT Air Shows
In the case of the loops, you could not say for certain that there would not be multiple casualties (again, your threshold) if it hit any of the things I mentioned. Of course a pilot should try to avoid these things, but for whatever reason, the pilot did hit those cars and the crash did kill those people.
But I guess it's some people's livelihoods and if the displays were out over the sea, they wouldn't be able to earn as much money.
The title has a ? In it.
Now what are the regulations on stopping bears from flying over roads?
1. Flying
2. Aerobatics
.....and it is vital that the two are seperated.
If a magician done a trick using gas bottles in front of a live audience and it went wrong killing 20 people, would you agree that the trick should be banned, or at least in front of a live audience?