It makes perfect sense

In formerly Great Britain they banned nearly all guns, they have essentially banned self defense, and they are talking about registering and banning knives. With that sort of mindset it follows perfectly well that they have banned fire extinguishers as well.


Via Ry.

7 thoughts on “It makes perfect sense

  1. I’m only a little bit disappointed in myself that I didn’t specifically predict this. Many of us in the pro 2A camp have however said, many times, that banning guns makes about as much sense as banning fire extinguishers.

    That analogy has been around for many years, but the point has always been an attempt to convince people that banning guns is stupid– not that banning fire extinguishers would ever make sense, or as a prediction of fire extinguisher bans.

    If we take this precedent as an indication of future proposals, which only makes sense, I guess we can look forward to bans on seat belts, helmets, first aid kits, stored food and water, flashlights, or any other safety precautions or equipment that could possibly be used “improperly” by “untrained” individuals.

    Don’t forget, people, that there is already a law on the books that says by 2010 or 2012, we are NOT to use incandescent light bulbs (because they’re ruining the planet). Nothing, therefore, should be considered as off the table when it comes to our retarded, dangerously insane and power-mad legislatoirs.

  2. It found this only yesterday in a comment on Oleg’s blog. It’s the exact same rationale used in the UK to ban fire extinguishers. The subject was the recent attack on the hotel in India;

    “Well, carrying a gun and using it efficiently are two different things. While armed citizens may be a restrain[t] for petty crime and random violence, in the case of well trained and organized terror it is hardly a factor.
    That is to say, ten well-trained bastards stood probably equal chance of carrying out the same in Texas as at any other place, save for those ones where people do not merely own and carry, but actually have served in active military and had a chance or two of using their weapon.”

    We can apply a simple substitution;

    “Well, keeping a fire extinguisher and using it efficiently are two different things. While fire extinguishers may be a restraint for random, insignificant fires, in the case of a serious, life-threatening fire it is hardly a factor.
    That is to say, a serious fire stood probably equal chance of killing people in a building equipped with fire extinguishers as at any other place, save for those ones where people do not merely keep fire extinguishers, but actually have served in active fire fighting and had a chance or two of using their fire extinguishers.”

    Apply at will, say, to the issue of keeping a first aid kit, etc..

  3. But we merely document the insanity. Overcoming it is an entirely different matter.

  4. I’ve seen research that found that those who wear seat belts tend to drive faster and less safely than those who don’t. The conclusion is that the belt-wearers feel safer and therefore take greater risks.

    To those who ignore defensive use of firearms and focus only on criminal use, that research would justify a seat-belt ban.

  5. So, are we more careless with fire ion the home, knowing we have fire extinguishers? That’s a little bit different argument I guess, than the ones used.

    Do we go places we wouldn’t otherwise go, knowing we’re carrying a gun? Maybe. Sometimes, at least some people might do that. I’m not aware of having done that myself, but then I’m not aware of ever having avoided any place back when I wasn’t carrying. Wouldn’t that be known as “freedom” in any case?

  6. My first thought was to make some comment about the famous quote from British colonial India, “…mad dogs and Englishmen…,” but then I realized that would be a cruel insult to the wisdom of mad dogs.

    When reading the article you need to translate this century politically correct English to last century plain English:
    1) risk assessors => village idiot
    2) safety hazard => life saving safety equipment

    I assume that they will turn off the running water in the flats because it can be used to fight fires, and many people die each year when they try to breath water.

Comments are closed.