It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flamethrowers being sold to general public.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
Flame throwers are a pretty niche weapon really. They are pretty easy to counter, you simply shoot the individual using it. Preferably from around 55 feet or so lol.

OMG, it sounds so scary! Ban it!!!!
That's exactly how I see it, hell I'd choose my vintage Barnett Commando crossbow over a flame thrower any day.




posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: grainofsand

Maybe a flamethrower wouldn't be as dangerous as a assault rifle in the UK environment. But in Australia (for example) you could easily start a massive bush fire and take out thousands of houses and a lot of people as well. We're not even allowed to have bqq's on really hot days, because of how prone our bush land is to fire.

Some fool who decides to clear the overgrowth on his property on the wrong day could cause a lot of damage. You could end up taking out an entire town!

Definitely more dangerous than a AR-15.
Oh I agree with you there, but that is a unique situation and most definitely not the point of the OP.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: caterpillage
Flame throwers are a pretty niche weapon really. They are pretty easy to counter, you simply shoot the individual using it. Preferably from around 55 feet or so lol.

OMG, it sounds so scary! Ban it!!!!
That's exactly how I see it, hell I'd choose my vintage Barnett Commando crossbow over a flame thrower any day.


You got a commando??? Sweet! I allways wanted one of those. In fact just a few days ago I thought of them and looked around online to see if any were for sale. Turns out there are. I may just pick one up for funsies.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: grainofsand

Maybe a flamethrower wouldn't be as dangerous as a assault rifle in the UK environment. But in Australia (for example) you could easily start a massive bush fire and take out thousands of houses and a lot of people as well. We're not even allowed to have bqq's on really hot days, because of how prone our bush land is to fire.

Some fool who decides to clear the overgrowth on his property on the wrong day could cause a lot of damage. You could end up taking out an entire town!

Definitely more dangerous than a AR-15.
but that is a unique situation and most definitely not the point of the OP.


Not really, they have some pretty crazy wildfires in the US as well. I'm fairly sure houses can be burnt down over there just as easily as here too.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

A most excellent bow to own, fast re-cocking, and effective at distances much further than the lame 50 feet of the flame thrower.
I was offered £800 recently for mine, I politely refused, I've had it over 20 years and new lath/prod and strings is all I've ever needed to buy.

*Edit*
I bought it second hand/used in 1994 for £50, it is still a mint condition Mk 1 Commando and I would choose it any day over a flame thrower with a lame 50 feet range. One could easily take out the psycho with the flame thrower in an imaginary post apocalyptic situation.


edit on 14.8.2015 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: grainofsand

Maybe a flamethrower wouldn't be as dangerous as a assault rifle in the UK environment. But in Australia (for example) you could easily start a massive bush fire and take out thousands of houses and a lot of people as well. We're not even allowed to have bqq's on really hot days, because of how prone our bush land is to fire.

Some fool who decides to clear the overgrowth on his property on the wrong day could cause a lot of damage. You could end up taking out an entire town!

Definitely more dangerous than a AR-15.
but that is a unique situation and most definitely not the point of the OP.


Not really, they have some pretty crazy wildfires in the US as well. I'm fairly sure houses can be burnt down over there just as easily as here too.
Yeah but still not the point of the OP no mention of wildfires there.
Interesting perspective, but the OP didn't seem to be primarily concerned about the dangers of wildfires from flame throwers.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hidinout
They are now being sold to the public, no background checks and persons under 18 can even buy them.

Flamethrowers were gruesome weapons of war and so controversial that the U.S. military stopped using them after Vietnam.
But as crazy as it may sound, they are available for sale to the public.

A Cleveland startup called Throwflame is selling flamethrowers for $1,599 that can shoot fire for 50 feet. Another company, Ion Productions Team of Detroit, is selling $900 flamethrowers that can eject flames for 25 feet. Both companies started selling them this year.
The flamethrowers are marketed not as weapons, but as fun devices.
"We always have the people who just want it for fun. Impress the neighbors at the BBQ," said Throwflame founder Quinn Whitehead.
Both Whitehead and Ion CEO Chris Byars said their flamethrowers have caused no injuries, and safety is a priority. But Ion notes on its website that the flamethrower "may result in injury or even death."

the rest of the story...

money.cnn.com...

What the Hell..this is beyond scary.


There is always that day when you put the entire can of starter fluid on the grill and want to light from 50 feet



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

i am not scared of flame throwers - i just utterly fail to see the point of having one

and no - i do not subscribe to the " because i can / want " ` argument `

my view of flame thrower ownership is simple :

what are you going to use it for , where and why will any alternative not suffice

further RISK

as others have pointed out thiey are neither precise , predicatble or controlable

so i view anyone who still wants one in a civilian environment as an idiot thats a danger to himself and others

thier military use has been largely superceded by granades and other incendary ordnance

you " compare " them to ownership of an AR-15

well it can shoot a wide range of game animals- it will shoot someone who wants to do me harm with minimal risk of collatarl damage -

the only time i would not reccomend using an AR-15 to visit violence on something is when using a :

, my fist - a knife , baseball bat12 ga shotgun , 9mm sidearm or larger calibre hunting rifle would be a more appro[priate choice in the circumstance



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
my view of flame thrower ownership is simple :

what are you going to use it for , where and why will any alternative not suffice

further RISK
Ah interesting, you support government control over ownership of flame throwers?
Why should I explain to you what I want to use a flamethrower say on my own property? I don't, but hypothetically.
Fireworks? I could make a pretty deadly weapon with a few boxes from the store.

I could buy many things which COULD be used irresponsibly, why the opposition to a device which shoots flames for 50 feet?
I think your response is purely emotion based. How do you determine which potentially lethal weapon should be controlled over others? I'm curious because I don't see the distinction, aside from being burned to death is more painful than being shot in the head.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Napalm oozing awesomeness!!!

Snow removal just got a whole lot easier and fun.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

no - my oposition to flamethrowers is not emotional - its a simple question answer it :

" i need a flamethrower to < insert reason > "

answer that rationally - and we can go forward



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: grainofsand

no - my oposition to flamethrowers is not emotional - its a simple question answer it :

" i need a flamethrower to < insert reason > "

answer that rationally - and we can go forward

"I wish to own one for responsible and safe entertainment purposes on my property" would be the easiest answer to that.
Who are you or the government to rule I can not, and why, as you appear to feel so strongly about it?

Do you advocate that the government stops you from being entertained by fire on your private property while adhering to all health and safety concerns, if you do not have a license or other such permit which you have to apply for?
What would you suggest for these new controls and restrictions you appear to seek?



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: grainofsand

no - my oposition to flamethrowers is not emotional - its a simple question answer it :

" i need a flamethrower to < insert reason > "

answer that rationally - and we can go forward


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond, if I may.

I don't need a flamethrower. It wouldn't give me any heartburn (no pun intended) if they were banned. Banned to the public, banned to law enforcement, and banned to the military.

But I think the important question is, why do you think CNN is doing a story about this now? Flamethrowers have been legal for some time. CNN's usual MO is to play on people's emotions to get them to give up their rights. But there have been no mass burnings or anything like that to tug on anyone's heartstrings. All they can do is come up with sound, logical reasons why flamethrowers should be banned.

So, why now? Why not two years ago? Or a decade ago?

I don't want to sound confrontational on this. I have a guess as to why now, I just want to see if anyone comes up with the same guess I have.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: grainofsand

no - my oposition to flamethrowers is not emotional - its a simple question answer it :

" i need a flamethrower to < insert reason > "

answer that rationally - and we can go forward


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond, if I may.

I don't need a flamethrower. It wouldn't give me any heartburn (no pun intended) if they were banned. Banned to the public, banned to law enforcement, and banned to the military.

But I think the important question is, why do you think CNN is doing a story about this now? Flamethrowers have been legal for some time. CNN's usual MO is to play on people's emotions to get them to give up their rights. But there have been no mass burnings or anything like that to tug on anyone's heartstrings. All they can do is come up with sound, logical reasons why flamethrowers should be banned.

So, why now? Why not two years ago? Or a decade ago?

I don't want to sound confrontational on this. I have a guess as to why now, I just want to see if anyone comes up with the same guess I have.


Good point,
They are just keeping the ban juices flowing.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: grainofsand

no - my oposition to flamethrowers is not emotional - its a simple question answer it :

" i need a flamethrower to < insert reason > "

answer that rationally - and we can go forward


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond, if I may.

I don't need a flamethrower. It wouldn't give me any heartburn (no pun intended) if they were banned. Banned to the public, banned to law enforcement, and banned to the military.

But I think the important question is, why do you think CNN is doing a story about this now? Flamethrowers have been legal for some time. CNN's usual MO is to play on people's emotions to get them to give up their rights. But there have been no mass burnings or anything like that to tug on anyone's heartstrings. All they can do is come up with sound, logical reasons why flamethrowers should be banned.

So, why now? Why not two years ago? Or a decade ago?

I don't want to sound confrontational on this. I have a guess as to why now, I just want to see if anyone comes up with the same guess I have.


Good point,
They are just keeping the ban juices flowing.
Yes, quite, and interesting to see the ban supporters on ATS.
AR15 okay but lame arsed 50 foot range flame thrower not, lol.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: grainofsand

no - my oposition to flamethrowers is not emotional - its a simple question answer it :

" i need a flamethrower to < insert reason > "

answer that rationally - and we can go forward


From one of the sites selling them,


-Agricultural controlled burns and ground-clearing
-Clearing brush, snow and ice
-Incinerating weeds and pesky insects
-Pyrotechnic events and movie props
-Lighting that 4th of July bonfire


They list some clear uses.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I don't get whats so new here? I've known several people with various types of flamethrower. A common farm implement, and great way to start the homecoming bonfire.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I don't get whats so new here? I've known several people with various types of flamethrower. A common farm implement, and great way to start the homecoming bonfire.


Maybe it's the "napalm" additive that got their panties all bundled up?

I was convinced it was awesome but when I seen the napalm, it became gotta have awesome, and reached for the checkbook.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
my view of flame thrower ownership is simple :

what are you going to use it for , where and why will any alternative not suffice

further RISK
Ah interesting, you support government control over ownership of flame throwers?
Why should I explain to you what I want to use a flamethrower say on my own property? I don't, but hypothetically.
Fireworks? I could make a pretty deadly weapon with a few boxes from the store.

I could buy many things which COULD be used irresponsibly, why the opposition to a device which shoots flames for 50 feet?
I think your response is purely emotion based. How do you determine which potentially lethal weapon should be controlled over others? I'm curious because I don't see the distinction, aside from being burned to death is more painful than being shot in the head.


Exactly. Further risk, what worry about it falling into the hands of someone who wants to use it in a public place to burn burn/burn it down as opposed to mass shooting? Plus anyone who uses it in a first hazard area is just asking for a fire/maybe an arsonist.

Why have any gun that not used for personal protection, hunting, etc? How about recreational shooting? In this case, recreational "flaming throwing". Personally I know people that would enjoy them recreationally and to add into events that they participate in with firearms and period issued items included but there's limited places, if in action, around people to use them.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

none of those alledged uses actually needs 0.5l of burning petrol propelled 15m



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join