You might lose that bet. There was a study done in Prince George's County, Maryland over a 15-year period (1992-2007) after they had required sprinklers in new construction. In 13,217 residential fires without sprinklers there were 101 fatalities. In 245 residential fires with sprinklers there were ZERO fatalities. Property damage was reduced by 90%. I tend to be a "live free or die" kinda guy, but maybe you shouldn't be allowed take your 5-month old into the "undiscovered country" with you.
I'm not following your point. This is what you said:
In 13,217 residential fires without sprinklers there were 101 fatalities.
In 245 residential fires with sprinklers there were ZERO fatalities.
Is that really that great? 245 fires is a very limited test compared to 13,217. If we tested anther 245 fires with sprinklers and only 4 people got killed (very possible), that would make it MORE likely to be killed with sprinklers in your home. So those stats really aren't telling me much.
Further, how does that compare to the hundreds of thousands of people who are seriously injured or killing in car accidents each year?
I still maintain that you'd save more bloodshed from helmets, 5 point harness, and roll-cages. If you're out to save the world, sprinklers in homes is far from the best place to start.
BTW, who is pushing for sprinklers in homes? Plumbers associations and manufacturers? The same type of people who pushed for AFCI's?
maybe you shouldn't be allowed take your 5-month old into the "undiscovered country" with you.
You know what the real killer is? 5 gallon buckets. We could save 30 children a year from drowning if we just ban 5 gallon buckets. Or better yet, let's tax and license buckets, that'll work even better. :grin: