Extinguishers banned as a fire safety hazard

[Gooberlx2]

I think you need to look again.

No, he's right. ABC is safe for common fires. If you work in a weirdo chem lab, then you've probably been trained on class D extinguishers.

 

[bfdd]

And in that did you learn anything that if you hadn't gone through that training, in the right situation, could of been dangerous?

sure, but they were more specialized situations. not really everyday kind of shit.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

LOL at the people arguing the average person isn't smart enough to use an extinguisher.

But no worries, that small popcorn fire won't get past the fire retardant door once it burns half the kitchen down.

 

[JSt0rm]

Care to share the knowledge? The only situation I can think of is a fire on a stove where using the extinguisher could knock a burning pan over, or the fuel source for the fire is still turned on, rendering the extinguisher useless

Thats correct. If you have a large amount of oil it can be risky as well.

 

[irishScott]

Thats correct. If you have a large amount of oil it can be risky as well.

In any case, I fail to see how it could hurt to actually use the extinguisher. And anyone who's ever watered flowers understands the concept of "water hit flowers and knock flowers over".

If we ever truly reach the day where the average (not below average, average) human being is incapable of safely using a modern fire extinguisher with no training then I'll take it as a sign of the apocalypse and start building my bunker.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let 'em burn. It's safer that way.

 

[spidey07]

Thats correct. If you have a large amount of oil it can be risky as well.

You're actually arguing FOR the ban. Unbelievable. Any man that doesn't know how to use a fire extenguisher is pretty useless anyway, just like britain's government wants to keep them.

 

[JSt0rm]

You're actually arguing FOR the ban. Unbelievable. Any man that doesn't know how to use a fire extenguisher is pretty useless anyway, just like britain's government wants to keep them.

I didnt say that. I am arguing for education on the subject.

 

[spidey07]

I didnt say that. I am arguing for education on the subject.

And I'm saying it's common sense how to use a fire extinguisher to stop a small fire that could eventually get really bad, really quick before any firefighters could get on scene. Having them can and likely WILL save peoples lives, removing them could cost peoples lives/property. The nanny government seeks to eliminate that common sense and instead rely on them for everything, that you are somehow too stupid for your own good. That is VERY wrong.

 

[JSt0rm]

And I'm saying it's common sense how to use a fire extinguisher to stop a small fire that could eventually get really bad, really quick before any firefighters could get on scene. Having them can and likely WILL save peoples lives, removing them could cost peoples lives/property. The nanny government seeks to eliminate that common sense and instead rely on them for everything, that you are somehow too stupid for your own good. That is VERY wrong.

Thats nice.

You picked this issue to rage against the nanny state. No ban has actually been put in place and if I do a Google search for this I find some talk from 2008.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3525380.ece <--- 2008. Almost word for word the same as your "Article"

The article you link to even states that by law they must not remove all fire extinguishers.

Basically this is a non issue you have grabbed onto to increase your hatred for all things liberal. In your mind from now on you will look at a liberal and think about how they would kill you with fire.

The only thing you should be thinking about is how taking massive amounts of LSD has altered your ability to live in reality.

 

[spidey07]

Jstorm, this is just one of hundreds to rail against. The point remains the same in all of them. Liberty and personal responsibility above all else.

 

[Argo]

So if it's a tiny little trash can fire I should evacuate and let the building burn down, as opposed to try and put it out?

 

[JSt0rm]

Jstorm, this is just one of hundreds to rail against. The point remains the same in all of them. Liberty and personal responsibility above all else.

Whatever man. I certainly don't give 2 shits if you decide to live in paranoia and delusion. Just don't feel bad when I swat you down from time to time. Its not a liberal thing, I do it just because.

 

[JSt0rm]

So if it's a tiny little trash can fire I should evacuate and let the building burn down, as opposed to try and put it out?

Yes. This is what liberals want.

 

[irishScott]

Thats nice.

You picked this issue to rage against the nanny state. No ban has actually been put in place and if I do a Google search for this I find some talk from 2008.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3525380.ece <--- 2008. Almost word for word the same as your "Article"

The article you link to even states that by law they must not remove all fire extinguishers.

Basically this is a non issue you have grabbed onto to increase your hatred for all things liberal. In your mind from now on you will look at a liberal and think about how they would kill you with fire.

The only thing you should be thinking about is how taking massive amounts of LSD has altered your ability to live in reality.

Much as Spidey might be taking this a little too far, he's right in principle this time. And the article states that "'Fire and safety regulations make clear that appropriate safety equipment must be provided,' said a spokesman." It says nothing about fire extinguishers specifically.

The scary thing is that this philosophy is even present anywhere in significant numbers. And it's new, grew from nothing. So it's not like a lot of extreme minorities that have been around for decades and never gotten anywhere (ie: The American Nazi and Socialist parties).

It's like the mandatory breathalyzers in cars. I used to use that in my arguments against certain aspects of gun control as an analogy to some opposing arguments (to demonstrate their absurdity). I talked about how it could never happen. What pops up a few weeks later? A California senator proposing exactly that, with the support of MADD. A multinational organization with 10,000+ members IIRC. Sure it probably won't amount to anything, but the sheer fact that so many people are giving it support, knowingly or otherwise, is scary, a potential threat and should not exist in enlightened society.

 

[irishScott]

So if it's a tiny little trash can fire I should evacuate and let the building burn down, as opposed to try and put it out?

Are you kidding? You might get 2nd degree burns and have blisters on your hands for weeks! And given that this is the UK, you'd cost the politician.. er... taxpayers money for treatment. Obviously losing all of your possessions in a fire to save you from those nasty burns is worth it for the good of the state.

/sarcasm

 

[JSt0rm]

A California senator proposing exactly that, with the support of MADD. A multinational organization with 10,000+ members IIRC. Sure it probably won't amount to anything, but the sheer fact that so many people are giving it support, knowingly or otherwise, is scary, a potential threat and should not exist in enlightened society.

So what? Nothing will come of it. But we sure as hell will attack each other over it? Makes no sense.

 

[JSt0rm]

Are you kidding? You might get 2nd degree burns and have blisters on your hands for weeks! And given that this is the UK, you'd cost the politician.. er... taxpayers money for treatment. Obviously losing all of your possessions in a fire to save you from those nasty burns is worth it for the good of the state.

Wow you even know you are on autopilot and still cant stop.

golf clap.

 

[irishScott]

Wow you even know you are on autopilot and still cant stop.

golf clap.

You check your sarcasm meter recently? I'm sure whoever dreamed up the idiotic idea in the OP's link has rationalized it differently.

In any case, care to offer alternative reasoning that actually makes logical sense? You stated earlier: "...to be nonchalant about there use is dangerous to yourselves and your family. "

Assuming you're using the extinguisher for its intended purpose and have half a brain... how?

 

[irishScott]

So what? Nothing will come of it. But we sure as hell will attack each other over it? Makes no sense.

No, but we've already sunk from "it'll never happen" to "it's been proposed and failed to pass". I prefer to nip things in the bud.

 

[JSt0rm]

No, but we've already sunk from "it'll never happen" to "it's been proposed and failed to pass". I prefer to nip things in the bud.

Well of course. Thats how democracy works. But to bring it up in a thread and apply whatever it is you are against to either the left or the right is counter productive.

 

[Jaepheth]

Obligatory reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gMbW4CtEuE

 

[Jaskalas]

Have you two been properly trained in the use of a fire extinguisher?

Point it at the flaming Lib, pull.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm not saying its a good idea to ban extinguishers (im not even sure if thats even true) but to be nonchalant about there use is dangerous to yourselves and your family.

That's a risk you're running. Nanny state government does not need to be involved, and banning fire extinguishers is absurd to any rational being. The idea is to use them BEFORE the fire gets big enough to require professional help.

 

[nick1985]

Point it at the flaming Lib, pull.

lol