Senators seek ban on extreme fighting

I don’t believe it:

TACOMA – Saying they’re afraid someone will get killed, a pair of state senators want to end “extreme fighting” events like the Toughman Contest that will be held this week at the Tacoma Dome.

Sens. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, and Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, propose banning so-called “extreme fighting,” including Toughman competitions and no-holds-barred fights that can involve bare-fisted contestants engaging in a mix of boxing and martial arts combat.

Promoters for the Tacoma Dome event say they are being unfairly singled out, and that Toughman competitions are less dangerous that other sports.

NHB’s events have already been hamstrung by imposed legislation. It’s just a knee-jerk reaction to the supposed ‘brutality and babarism’ of extreme fighting.

There are more deaths per competitor in boxing than NHB’s fights. Horse-riding causes the highest proportion of head injuries out of any sport!
Maybe they should ban that as well.
People don’t understand the sport and just react emotionally.

IMO it will do more harm than good leading to the scene going underground, then people really will get hurt.

Yet another politician trying to protect people, when there is no need. One more liberty taken away. Smoking in public places…seat belts…helmets…certain supplements…gun control through red tape…fill in the next one here______________.

Sad.

give me a break, how many boxers have died in the ring. Politicians will do what ever it takes.

i have never heard of these politicians. in my neck of the woods, politicians do stunts like this to get their names out so that they have recognition come november. unlike others, i remember the dumb move and refuse to vote for them. i also let it be known thru well written letters to the editor to remind others. i’d like to know what kind of sheltered lives these people have led if this is not a campaign year. we have been legislated into a corner and need an outlet. if this gets taken away i can only imagine what can happen in its place (although fight clubs have been around for a while now).

Sorry I will argue the smoking in public places issue because that is not a right. It is a an infringement. When it violates the rights of another it becomes an infringement. It is the equivalent of saying you have the right to go out and give people cancer. Now if you don’t want to wear your seat belt you are only hurting yourself. Helmet, yourself. Pro hormones, Yourself. Smoking involves second hand smoke wich in turn involves another. You do have the right to smoke but outside, in your car, in your home, so it is not totally banned so your right to smoke has not been taken away. So what about the other person who does not smoke, what about their right to eat their dinner without having to breathe that nasty smelling filth into their lungs every single time they try to take a bite out of their food? So who is right here? The smoker or the Non smoker? The Non smoker did not infringe on anybodies rights the smoker did.

Three or four people did die last year in Toughman fights, but they signed a very long waiver before getting into the ring so they should have known the risks.

mdog more than you might think:

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY – The Games and Amusements Board has ordered an investigation into the death of a professional boxer during a boxing promotion in Titay, Zamboanga Sibuguey Province last Monday, Oct. 27.

08.18.2003 02:20 AM
An alarming tone of victim hysteria is beginning to obscure the important questions and issues relating to Brad Rone’s death in the ring last month

When Owen entered the ring last September 19th to fight Lupe Pintor for the WBC?s bantamweight championship
In the tragic aftermath of Johnny Owen?s death, the WBC made it known that his life was insured for $50,000.

This was just after a quick search.

McCain’s efforts some years back led to the UFC being banned from many states and to their being taken off cable.

Toughman contests and NHB must be distinguished from each other, as one involves amateurs and barroom tuffguys, while NHB (for the most part)fighters are trained professionals.

I don’t know that these 2 senator’s campaign will appeal to their consituents to such a degree as to make a large effort worthwhile, but there are always morons seeking to gain political leverage by pushing generalized and unfactual legislation.

I think petitions are available to sign at sherdog.com to prevent measures such as this.

creed
that’s my point this is nothing new! just some one trying to make a name for himself at others expense. i have personal friends that fight in pride and ufc. pride is the only one that i can see some one getting killed by a head stomp, other than that the ref is right there and if guy isn’t defending himself they do stop it.

ru12nvme,

Actually, I agree with you on the smoking part. I meant to state that banning it in “public bars” (as in taverns open to the public), is an infringment on the rights of those who enjoy smoking while they have a beer.

i actually have to disagree with one of the posts above, a little bit.
i agree that if something does not affect someone else then it should be a decision left to the individual. smoking is still questionable, so i won’t go there.
the one i will question is seat belts and helmets. people who don’t wear them get hurt more seriously than people who do wear them. however, this leads to increased insurance costs, among other costs to society (loss of life, etc.), that affect others.

Politicians=Jerk-offs

I guess the whole bottom line here is what are WE doing about it. How are WE actually going out and STOPPING these people from taking our rights away. You could run for office. You could get a petition going, you could fight back. Too many people sit and their ass and bitch and complain(including me) and do nothing. As long as they have food on the table and money in their pockets and their own little world is OK they could give a shit less. There is a big part of society that does not even know how government works or laws get passed. He who holds the Money wins.

I’m glad the helmet thing got brought up again because I wanted to respond to some posts on the other thread that has now become buried. The short version of my argument was that those who get into accidents and don’t wear a helmet will become vegetables, require 24-hour a day care in a nursing home, and will ultimately need to apply for public benefits to pay for that care which will cost the taxpayers. And unless someone is extremely wealthy, a person in a nursing home for any extended period of time WILL need public benefits - it’s not if, but when.

A lot of people challenged this argument by saying “why don’t you ban driving cars as well since those are dangerous.” This argument misses the point. I was never in favor of banning motorcycles, and wearing a helmet certainly is not the same as a ban on motorcycles. It’s a safety regulation. There’s a big difference between banning an activity outright and imposing safety regulations. And there are certainly tons of regulations imposed on how we drive. For instance, in Colorado, I’m not allowed to drive a car without insurance. From a financial perspective, buying car insurance puts a bigger burden on my freedoms than wearing a helmet for motorcycle riders. I don’t know how much helmets cost, but it’s a one time expense - as long as you don’t get in an accident and bust the thing, you can wear the same helmet for years without every buying another one. However, I need to renew my car insurance every year. And I need to buy insurance even though I’ve never been in an accident - sure, my premiums have gone down for being a “good driver,” but I still need to pay. Interestingly, I have never heard anyone argue for eliminating mandatory auto insurance laws, at least not with the same vigor as those opposed to helmets.

Anyway, as for the ultimate fighting thing, let 'em fight - it helps small businesses that own concessions and manage parking lots.

Zeb, again, not to steal the thread here and turn it into a different issue. Now you have to ask yourself. Does the Waitress who serves you in that bar or tavern not have the same right to not breathe clean air as you? Does not matter if you are enjoying your beer or not. Go outside and smoke, come back in and have your beer. We could play this out all day long with so many things. Bottom line is if we don’t like something what are WE doing as a society to change it? NOTHING. Now if they tried to get rid of alcohol or cigarettes all together all hell would break loose and the government knows that and they don’t even dare try. YET.

On Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit” series they ran a story that claimed there is no scientific link between second hand smoke and cancer, demonstrating that the statistic that is usually given is based on speculation in one source.

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics_all.do

in regards to a couple of posts above…about insurance. Chris Rock says it should be called “In case shit happens” because that is what insurance is for, but at the same time, we should get that money back…

ru12mvne,

Now you sound like the politically correct that bend over backward to help that one distraght individual who has to listen to a prayer and is offended by it. As if they can’t get up and leave?

This country became great because it listened to, and catered to the majority! If the waitress does not like to smell smoke in a bar she can apply for a job elsewhere!

I am a non-smoker, and never have indulged in that habit. However, those who want to go to a bar are well aware that they are going to smell smoke. Those who want to smoke have every right to do so in such a place.

I am surprised that you support NHB fighting. Arn’t you afriad that someone who attends the fight might become shocked and scarred for life at the sight of two men beating each other in such a viloent manner? I would expect as much from someone with such a stance on smoking in public bars.

I am a non-smoker, and never have indulged in that habit. However, those who want to go to a bar are well aware that they are going to smell smoke. Those who want to smoke have every right to do so in such a place.

THAT is incorrect. Smoking is not a right it is a choice and a habit. So then I would have the right to pull my draws down and jack off in the bar too because when I drink I get horny. That is the sort of analogy you want me to believe. Not all drinkers smoke. I drink and I do not smoke. Again nobody is saying you cannot smoke. What they are saying is that your second hand smoke is offensive to others that do not smoke and because you are causing this offensive behaviour it is you that are going to have to leave. Sorry if you do not like it Mr. Smokers but something has to give here and because it is you that is causing the offense it is you that must go outside. Nobody says you have to stop smoking. We are just saying you cannot do it in a public enclosure anymore. So what is the big deal about having some common courtesy. So many smokers think it is there God given RIGHT to smoke. It is their choice but not a RIGHT by any means. Your RIGHTS are written in the Constitution and all their sub paragraphs and last time I checked nowhere did it say you have the right to smoke in bars and taverns and if you don’t want to work there then f*** off.