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.
That's exactly how I see it, hell I'd choose my vintage Barnett Commando crossbow over a flame thrower any day.
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!!!!
Oh I agree with you there, but that is a unique situation and most definitely not the point of the OP.
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.
originally posted by: grainofsand
That's exactly how I see it, hell I'd choose my vintage Barnett Commando crossbow over a flame thrower any day.
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!!!!
originally posted by: grainofsand
but that is a unique situation and most definitely not the point of the OP.
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.
Yeah but still not the point of the OP no mention of wildfires there.
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
originally posted by: grainofsand
but that is a unique situation and most definitely not the point of the OP.
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.
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.
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.
Ah interesting, you support government control over ownership of flame throwers?
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
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
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
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.
Yes, quite, and interesting to see the ban supporters on ATS.
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.
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
-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
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.
originally posted by: grainofsand
Ah interesting, you support government control over ownership of flame throwers?
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
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.