Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jan 12, 6:42=A0pm, mleuck <m.le...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 11:55=A0am, jamesgangnc <jamesgan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 12:51=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > A compromise might be to have sprinklers at fireplaces, kitchens,
> > laundry rooms and gas heat/hw. =A0Dryers are common fire starter. =A0Li=
nt
> > plus hot is bad.
>
> I'd go even farther and outlaw electricity to the house, someone here
> once said "If it saves ONE life it's worth it" so

This whole thread is totally useless. This kind of shit is always
propagated by "safety zealots" ( If it saves OOOOOOONE life ..... )
who are quickly followed by politicians who want to get re-elected by
passing "feel good" (do nothing - unenforceable) laws.

Yeah, lets pass a law that says that everyone has to have sprinker
systems in their house. So ok ...... you can force people to install
them but you can't force them to maintain or even keep them in running
condition. Lets say a fire occurs and the sprinkler system doesn't
work because it wasn't maintained. Someone dies. Some one goes to
jail. So now what? ....Does the person who died come back to life?
No?  Oh yeah, that's right. Some one gets sued and the family gets a
lot of money or the guy goes bankrupt or doesn't have the means to pay
and all of this is  SUUUUUURE to make the next asshole who doesn't
want to maintain a system think twice. Yeah ..... sure that's going to
happen.
Yep ..... Uh Huh!

 In the meantime, people are paying millions of dollars to install and
maintain system so that ...... what ..... a few lives a year are
saved?    The safety zealots say that it's worth it? Then let them pay
for it.

This is all just as stupid as outlawing guns to law abiding people so
that the criminals wont use them to commit crimes.