Should the government ban mountain climbing?

Absolutely 100% not.

I hope you are being sarcastic (hard to tell over the net).

In fact, Government should not have outlawed smoking or transfats either. They are a violation of our rights in the name of our safety. We can examine other countries (and even segments of our own past) to see where this leads.

The only responsibility (and therefore authority) of our government should be to protect our rights (Life, Liberty, Property).

Why shouldn't restaurants be allowed to serve transfats? Yes, they are unhealthy, but since the patron has the choice to eat them, shouldn't the owner have the choice to serve them? Why should we VIOLATE the owners property rights to ensure a patrons health (something they could choose to do)?

"After all, it's the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves. Right?"

Haha. It's your own stupid fault if you hurt yourself, don't blame the freaking government. Sure, I understand the risk of second-hand smoke and yadda yadda, but if people are dumb enough to willingly kill themselves slowly, why should the government stop them? If anything, we should encourage dangerous activities like smoking so that people will die faster, and therefore lower our dependence on foreign oil (as these smokers will no longer drive and be able to waste gas).

And stop pollution too. Hug trees. Yay.

And while we're at it, let's ban cars. They kill a hell lot more than mountaineering accidents, so therefore they must be a menance to society, and should be eliminated from our society.

I think we can all safely assume your opinion is in the minority, therefore you must be wrong. Good day.

Should the government ban everything that would or could have the potential of hurting or killing a human life. If so, then the only way that I could see it ever enforced, is to enclose each and every one of us in a type of "Matrix" and let us live out virtual lives.

In life, we make choices that can have good or bad consequences. We have to weigh the benefits and risks, and accept the consequences.

Interesting point. At the very least, they should have to pay for the cost of the rescue effort. If you dialed 911 because you needed an ambulance, the ride to the hospital sure isn't free. In these three's case, it would be insulting to make the families pay in hind sight, but perhaps for future climbs on Mt. Hood, all climbers should either pay "rescue insurance" or sign a waiver that in case of emergency they are responsible for all associated costs for rescue.

No they shouldn't. Banning smoking and trans fats is the government overstepping its boundaries. These decisions need to be left up to the individual or the business. Of course, all this is fueled by people who push their values and their views onto the rest of us to make us the way that we think we should be.

They should put down large razor sharp spikes in rocky climbing areas the kind they use to stop pigeons sh*tting on statues

No climbers are aware of the dangers....In fact their familys should get a bill for the search response

Please, grow up. Comparing smoking bans to a silly jest of mountain climbing bans is like trying to get a praying mantis and a blue whale to mate. In other words, don't even try to compare them, you end up with a really pointless argument.

Hello,

So, what you are saying is you want Americans freedoms to pursue fun and adventure to be a crime?

So, you want our government to take away all our personal freedom's?

I am guessing you like Big Brother then, no?

Hope this helps you............... : - O

absolutely not. thats like saying we should ban driving. many more people die each year in car accidents than in climbing accidents. its a tragedy but those guys died doing what they love.