Had to break it up. Sorry. 😔

💔don't break up with me

My heart couldn't take it

<Ok, so now all electrical fires are arson>

No, and accidental discharges aren't murder. Do you have a point, and can we get off this fire analogy? It really isn't useful.

<No ... gun control law has ever stopped a shooting>

Perhaps not; but this is completely irrelevant as I have already stated I am against gun control and for Consitutional carry, a right I myself exercise. Again, do you have a point?

<you STILL haven't tried to change my mind>

I am not under any obligation to debate on your terms. This forum does not belong to you. Given you are obsessed enough with this topic to run a YouTube channel with over 100 rant videos no one has watched, I seriously doubt your mind is changeable.

<All you've done is tacitly call me a liar>

Show me where. Or I *will* call you a liar, and it won't be tacit.

<you were too busy replying to read ... There is actually no "right" to drive>

That was my point and I stated it in plain English. You are projecting your own lack of reading comprehension onto me.

<"Dirt" was an autocorrect, it should have been "sort">

Noted. No worries.

<Otherwise I haven't insulted you... Inspire of your insults.>

I'll assume you meant 'in spite of'. Again I'll ask you to show me where I have insulted you, or I *will* call you a liar.

<Crayons was hardly an isult>

No, I'm sure that implying I need crayon illustrations to understand simple concepts was intended neither to insult my intelligence nor my maturity.

<Flat out calling you a liar (not yet) would have been>

I tremble in anticipation of your withering invective.

@Mandatory Carry it's not an assumption. It's a fact. If you make carry mandatory, then firearms WILL be put into the hands of morons. It's unavaoidable unless you have an overreaching nanny state that can simultaneously moniter the psychological and mental aptitudes of every citizen and screen morons from the mandatory carry laws.

@DJ_Anuz that seems to be exactly his plan.

Then what's the point of mandatory carry if the government is already that overreaching?

And @Mandatory Carry show me your sources that say fire extinguishers are required in state households. All the states I've lived in (7 of them) don't require them in private homes. In fact I've never lived in a home with a fire extinguisher.

Most states only mandate them in public accommodations.

@uncephalized
Fire extinguishers are mandatory home equipment. The precedent is set, whether you "like" it or not.
I said, *"change **MY** mind,"* it's *quite* clear you're incapable of seeing reason.
So. *"change **MY** mind"* or allow me yo stop wasting my time.

@DJ_Anuz
¿Do you have ANY basis for that statement? Millions of people drive everyday, yet there's only hundreds of accidents.
*"Overreaching nanny state."*
Ok. That's *ALMOST* an argument... And would be were it not addressed earlier; *'(B)y the time you complete high school, the graduate would either be qualified for a concealed carry permit or a mandatory exemption.'*
https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Campaigns/Fire-Sprinkler-Initiative/Legislation-and-adoptions/Sprinkler-requirements (Oddly it's the same NFPA you cited earlier. They should get thier shit in one sock.)
I **DON'T** agree that sprinklers should be required in every home, it's exxecively burdomsome (as it is intended to be, mark my words), but all the states have requirements *of some sort." That dome if your homes didn't only means you were violating a fire code and getting away with it- Like 6Ø-ish% of the rest if the country (myself included at one point).
The burdon of have adequate self-denfensive capabilities v. the benefit (dying v. not) places the greater onus carrying.

<I said, "change MY mind,">

And? I said the same magic words. Are you now under a sorcerous compulsion to do my bidding?

<So. "change MY mind" or allow me yo stop wasting my time.>

You can do whatever you want. No need for permission from me.

---
TFW a debate on reverse-gun-control turns into an autistic argument about fire extinguisher laws...

@Mandatory Carry still waiting for evidence that I insulted you or tacitly called you a liar, btw.

Yall were talking about mandatory carry earlier and how to incentivise carrying without penalizing those that dont. The point made about a tax break for those that carry instead of a tax increase for those that dont is good. Like how insurance companies give you a discount for using a dashcam

Also as little as fire extinguishers matter in this discussion, are they really mandatory in location in the US? I know plenty of people that do not have fire extinguishers.

I have never heard of this supposed law requiring them in residences, nor could I find it when I looked, but Mr Mandatory seems adamant on the point.

Btw I agree @Just for youtube [NB1] about subsidizing citizens who carry. I'd allow them to write off periodic safety and marksmanship courses on their taxes.

Also first aid/responder training and that kind of thing.

I've never heard of such a requirement for non-businesses

I would suggest that perhaps a citation is needed on the legal requirement for fire extinguishers

Nuh uh bro, the burden of proof is on you to show that the law *doesn't* exist.

:^)

Snark aside, perhaps @Mandatory Carry would like to cite the legislation mandating fire extinguisher ownership

@Beemann
Already did;
https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Campaigns/Fire-Sprinkler-Initiative/Legislation-and-adoptions/Sprinkler-requirements
I can't go through all 5Ø states and list thier code section, and is *STILL* irrelevant, no matter how uncephalized moves the goal posts;
*"Change **MY** mind"*
At least @DJ_Anuz has brought *some* argument (unfortunately for him, that argument was already at least 3 years old).
@Just for youtube [NB1]
*"That some of your home's didn't only means you were violating a fire code and getting away with it like 6Ø-ish% of the rest of the country myself included at one point)."*
*"Asked And Answered. Twice now."*
*"The point about a tax break for those that carry"*
Was what *I* said... About 3 years ago...
*"instead of a tax increase"*
¿Who said that? Oh right, someone who's not even here...
I know what I said, and strawmanning me isn't helpful.

Nor is reversing the goal posts. All I've seen so far is a bunch of "I don't like it" ism.
... Well **HELL, *I DONT "LIKE" IT EITHER.*** I also don't "like" seat belts and fire extinguishers, but they ARE real things.

BTW, how kind of you to to claim my idea as your own, @uncephalized. 😠😠😠😠

This source shows that only like 3 regions have mandated it, and only in new homes

¿Did you read it?

Yes
"States/regions *requiring* fire sprinklers in *new*, one- and two-family homes: CA, MD, Washington, D.C.   "
"States *prohibiting* statewide and new, local adoptions of fire sprinkler requirements in new, one- and two-family homes: AK, AL, AZ, CT, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI "

I doubt you're going to sway people here by citing California laws as well

Not about to cite THAT state. I'd rather die first.
Tell me ONE state that does not have a residential fire extinguisher code.

According to your source, every state in the second quote prohibits sprinkler requirements

Prohibiting sprinklers, *THAT'S* a new one.

In fact there's multiple limitations here
1) it's for new homes, and is not retroactive
2) it's only enforced by 2 states and a city
3) one of those states is commiefornia

Prohibits requirements. Don't skim

*Tell me ONE state that does not have a residential fire extinguisher code.*

Jesus, ¿do I **REALLY** have to point it out?

So are we counting prohibition of a requirement as a code? That's shifting goalposts considerably

No, please, @Beemann, prove you're as smart as I think you are...

Read your own source and come back to me

¿Is a sprinkler a fire extinguisher?
Damn guys, I bread crumbed the SHIT out of that trail...
And STILL, nothing to even generally change my mind...

No

That's a code for new homes built

A sprinkler is meant to extinguish fires
And if you're not going to count it, you're still on the hook for a source

Like cars after 1965 are required to have seatbelts

I do not need extinguishers in my home