This company will eventually be sued out of business.

My brother and I had the album and would always play it when mom and dad weren't around. The funny thing is that I heard this bit on an internet radio station yesterday. As soon as I saw this story, I just couldn't resist.

This Byers guy says they're getting support from fire fighters? Sorry, but no. Sure, many cops support everybody owning lots of guns because cops are... well... somewhat dim, as a group. Fire fighters are not that stupid.

cause a run on whatever it is. Look what happens everytime a gun/ammo is mentioned for banning or regulation.

Best sales tool there is...

Wow. People bought a box for 500 dollars because they thought they'd never be seen again. Surprise! They were back in six months. What a great campaign that was. However it did get crazy.

What the hell!!!!

Scares the shit out of me. Could you imagine some shithead going into a school or movie theater with this?

Just in case a plague of locusts comes their way they'll be ready?

And of course as penis extenders.

some people will spend any amount of money for penis extenders!

I would love to see a dollar to dollar comparison.

I haven't. On the other hand, a woman in DC yesterday admitted to killing her husband by running him over, so maybe we should ban SUVs? I mean, it had to be the SUVs fault that woman decided to purposefully run over her husband, right?

Big ass axes and extra sharp chainsaws are ok too.

just like with guns and cars, accidents happen. The likelihood of occurrence is higher when there are more of them out there, and if irresponsible people are misusing them.

A lot can go wrong with fire and flammable liquids.

you can now do both at the same time!

Burning weeds is an old farming technique. In most cases you just start a fire and direct where it goes (and put it out when it has done its job). A flamethrower (which can be a flame out of a propane) makes this job a lot easier to control (you can shut off the flame if it starts to get out of hand). This flame throwers have a good role in burning weeds, even in urban areas (except during dry periods such as the situation in the West today).

Thus there are uses for flame throwers.

I have a small propane one that I use to clear weeds from the cracks in my sidewalks. It's far friendlier to the environment than herbicides.

Will the NRA be out fighting for your right to own a flame thrower?

Thus a flamethrower had a limited combat role. An important combat role, but limited. It had an effective range of about 20 yards, fired in bursts of 10 to 20 seconds, and out of fuel after two minutes of use and that with a 70 pound tank on your back. Best used in a team of two, one fires, the other waits, thus after about four minutes of such use (each tank can fire for two minutes of constant use, but rarely used that way), both tanks are empty and has to go back to battalion to be refilled.

If possible, tanks were used to carry the flame thrower, this permitted more fuel to carried.

Just a comment that I do NOT see these weapons being used to kill people. Their combat role is to burn the oxygen of people in dugouts, thus suffocating them due to lack of oxygen. Most theaters are design for people to escape in case of fire, thus most people will get away for they would be out of range (20 yard range). The person carrying the 70 pounds of fuel will not be able to chase after them, you try to run with 70 pounds on your back.

Yes, they are smaller "Flame throwers" such as a propane torch, but the smaller flamethrowers also have shorter range, in the case of a propane torch about a foot from the nozzle.

That flamethrowers are NOT banned is like banning Hydrogen acid, the most reactive acid known to man. Hydrogen Acid goes by many names, dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen hydroxide, oxidane, Aqua, and other names. It is the only substance know to be able to attack gold, silver and copper but also does the following:

Death due to accidental inhalation, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to this substance in its solid form can causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
It is a s a major component of acid rain.
In its Gaseous form it is known to cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations of this substance are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/

Yet, just like flamethrowers, the the efforts to ban Hydrogen acid have all failed.

If you have not figure out Hydrogen Acid is another name for water, you may not understand how dangerous water is. Compared to water, the flame thrower has a very short threat level, poor portability and can only be used for a short time period.

As to the names, the OH group is the name for acids, thus HOH is Hydrogen Acid, HHO is dihydrogen monoxide, and hydrogen hydroxide, OHH is monoxygen dihyrda and oxidane (ane is any combination of Hydrogen, dane means it has two hydrogens). Aqua is the Latin term for water. It is recommended that people AND scientists use the word "Water" for water not these little used terms.

I bring water up for water is a dangerous element, but is unregulated except when it comes to water into your house and the sewerage going out of your house. Flame throwers are also dangerous, but like water, the danger is limited and understood. I just do not see theater people sitting in their seats while a man totes a 70 pound tank on is back into the theater. I see people leaving and staying away from him (and that will NOT be that hard to do, given he has a 70 pound tank on his back). Flamethrowers are NOT used to kill people, for you have to enclosed them in an air tight area for it to be effective. In combat, rifle fire is used to keep the soldiers in the dugout and then the flame thrower goes to work. As long as the soldiers in the dug out can return fire, they can keep the flame thrower away, it is only after they are out of ammunition or lost the fire fight and have to spot shooting, that the flame thrower can get close enough to do its job. For this reason Flame throwers have a very limited combat usage, mostly against dugouts and other pre made entrenchments.


Presently the US Army are using the M202 Incendiary rocket, please note because these have a blast charge to set off the incendiaries, they are covered by the ban on explosives as to ownership. These have longer range then the old flamethrowers (almost five times the range, but that means they have a range of 100 yards instead of 20, which is important for the average range someone is shot at in combat is 85 yards).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M202_FLASH

More on the M2 flamethrower of WWII fame:

http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_flamethrower.htm

if you douse a person with a highly flammable liquid which is, in fact, on fire, the person will catch fire and death, or at least severe maiming, can result.

I am familiar with the tactical use of flamethrowers. What I worry about is this particular model in the hands of Tea Party loon under the influence of a Rush Limbaugh or a Pat Robertson.

Now I have read of people trying to do that to people but the potential victim ran away when the gas was tossed on then and before someone ignited the gasoline. One set of exceptions was when the victim could NOT leave do to physical restraints.

Most cases occur when someone tossed the gasoline on themselves, and then lite themselves. This is what the Buddhist monks did in Vietnam in the mid 1960s and what started the Arab spring. A person in Tunisia lite himself and that became the rallying point of the people against their dictator.

As to someone using an actual flamethrower it is possible but most people stay away from someone with a 70 pound tank on their back and a nozzle with fire coming out of it.

A user of a flamethrower has to open the value from the tank, light the flame and then the flamethrower is ready for use. In combat this was all done under protective fire from the troops supporting the flamethrower.

In real life this takes a good bit of time. Thus flamethrower were useless in open combat situations. Such operations are to fluid. Thus for a flamethrower to be used against someone by an individual the victim will have to stand still while the value us opened, the Sparker is used to light the pilot light. Thus often takes a couple of operation of the sparker to light. Then to put the sparker away and release the main flow of gasoline. This takes a few minutes, more then enough time to realize what is up and leave.

Yes it is possible to use this device against someone in the open but a baseball bat would be more effective for you can use the baseball bat without any preparation and chase after anyone who leaves without that 70 pound tank on your back. Yes it us possible that such a weapon will be used, but baseball bats will be used 1000s of times before we have a flamethrower attack.

will work great in the dark and if I make a mistake no DNA to incriminate me

I should also say, given these are gasoline based systems, they are known to leak, but if you want to have one in your bedroom, all 70 pounds and ready to go, please tell me what town you are living in, so I can make sure I live someplace else when you burn your house down and all of your neighbor's homes at the same time (and any burglar using the resulting confusion to escape without any harm being done to him, the range of flame throwers are terrible, you be better off with a baseball bat).

By the way, does your wife like the smell of gasoline in her bedroom? The prospect of her house burning down around? Your insurance agent cancelling your home insurance? Do you like the idea of jumping out of bed and putting on a 70 pound pack on your back? Or is your plan to give it to your wife to haul around (Divorce lawyers are NOT cheap, so I would NOT recommend it as a present for your wife).

On a serious note, the burst of flame kills your night vision, so when the fire goes out, it will take you 15 minutes to adjust to the lack of light. By then any burglar would have stole what he wanted and be long gone, maybe even giving the police directions to your burned out house.

The logical side of me says I would either burn down the neighborhood and/or kill myself.

Still....who wouldn't want a flame thrower!?!

Modern Flamethrowers (There is some indication that "Greek Fire" of the early middle ages was a form of Flame Thrower) came out of German efforts during WWI. The main purpose of flame throwers is to absorb all of the oxygen in a sealed hole and suffocate anyone in that hole. Yes, bodies were burned, but that was a side affect, the main military effect was to kill the people in a enclosed trench. IT was for this purpose the US Marines used Flame throwers during WWII. The US developed Napalm for the same reason, to burn up oxygen in entrenched positions.

Since Vietnam, flame rockets have replaced flame throwers. The rockets have longer range and does not tie up a soldier to that weapon only. In simple terms a Flame thrower is a weapon of limited usability i.e. only really usable when engaged with an enemy in an entrenched position with overhead cover and that position can not be bypassed (During Desert Storm, the US Army bulldozed such positions do to the Iraqi soldiers dunking down deep into their entrenchments AND such entrenchments did not have multiple exits, as did the Japanese dugouts in the last years of WWII).

Thus what is EXEMPT from the prohibition of incendiary weapons, are the weapons used currently by the US:

Thus White Phosphorous, an incendiary weapon, is permitted under the treaty for its main purpose is to burn away cover (at least that is the official line in the Military). Conventional flame throwers would also be legal, for there were designed to be used against troops in trenches with over head cover and then to burn all of the Oxygen out NOT to burn the people in the enclosed trench (The bodies ended up being burned as they died from the lack of Oxygen and fell into the fire, people with flame throwers rarely stop using them till all resistance had ended).

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/B409BC0DCFA0171CC12571DE005BC1DD/$file/PROTOCOL+III.pdf

This is consistent with the reservation the US stated when it ratified this convetion:



My Father's unit had flamethrowers when they hit the beach in Normandy on D-Day, but once the troops cleared the beach, the flamethrowers were turned in and other weapons were given out. The reason was the Flame thrower would have had some use against the pill boxes on the beach, but once the beach was taken, they would become useless.

The Flame thrower has a very limited military effect, one of the uses of flame throwers in Vietnam was to burn away the surrounding plant growth (often referred to a "Cover&quot .

This brings up the reason such flamethrowers are NOT illegal in most states. To make them illegal you first have to define what is a flamethrower and given the use of similar devices to burn away plant growth, how do you define a flamethrower WITHOUT throwing in the devices used to burn plants? Most legislature just give up and go home (and that these have NEVER been used in a Criminal action, is another problem, through I have heard of stories of Police officers being threatened by someone with a flame device design for weed burning).

Put yourself in the enemies position: you're a machine gunner holding your ground, an opposing force is
attacking your position, you spot one or more soldiers approaching and armed with flamethrowers.

Where and on whom are you going to shift and concentrate all your fire on?

And if it's the pressurized tank topped off with 5 gallons of gasoline that gets hit, you're going to die a very unpleasant
and painful death.

My father's unit was trained to hit the beaches at Normandy by using barges to ship troops to Slaton sands beach on the south coast of Engkand. He always joked about the one exercise where the flamethrower jumped off the barge and sank into rather water due to the weight of the flamethrower. As that soldier bobbed up another soldier jumped off the barge right onto the flamethrower and he went down again. No serious harm. Both soldiers survived the training but he laughed about it later as how dangerous was the job of being a flamethrower.

Actual landing craft were in short supply during WWII, thus barges were used in training sessions. Unlike actual landing craft which had doors that opened up on one end, those barges were regular barges that the soldiers had to climb to the top and jump down into the water. Thus what happened to the flamethrower would NOT HAVE happened on D-DAY because by then the Normandy invasion force had most of the landing craft thus barges were not used for the actual landing.

but pot is still banned.

Because *THAT* makes total sense.

It's insane. What a perfect weapon for terrorists. All they need to destroy huge part of cities is to overwhelm fire depts. by having 12 or so of these weapons and setting fire to dozens of buildings at once.

It would be such a waste of their AK47 ammo to try and do it with the rifle.

i guess this falls under "if your only tool is a hammer..."

That's a rhetorical question, btw. As is this one: Who in their right minds would feel the need to own one of these???

Mind boggling. Just mind boggling.

is to clear snow from your driveway.

In hard times to burn the spikes off cactus, so the cows can eat the cactus. Cows love cactus.

A neighbor once had a WWII flamethrower, Army surplus. He used it to
heat and crack rocks with water or sledge hammer.

You flame-grabbers!

if bored kids can figure out how to make an analog out of a toy (before the internet), then banning them won't exactly be an effective restriction to criminal misuse.

Pretty sure ours went further than 25 feet too. I doubt it was as safe though.

If you want to get people to buy something, threaten to ban it.

Even harder to imagine there are idiots willing to pay that much money for them.

that would see a lot more family fun time at the range.

What a really stupid notion. On the other hand I've had a powerjet weed burner for years where you can unscrew the gas jet and blow a million btu flame. Aluminum cans evaporate in front of your eyes. Fun but a costly waste of fuel. And yeah, its stupid. If it were portable where you didn't have to lug around a propane tank? A nutbags delight. A real blast at the local theater. Banning is not a bad idea.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=392845

i want to hear how the founders would have wanted everyone to have flamethrowers.

YouTube has a number of DIY flamethrower videos posted

Personally, it's not something I'd do, nor would I want to be anywhere anyone operating one.

At least the ones being offered for sale have (I assume), proper safety features installed.
I'd be curious to know how, what and how much liability insurance the vendors obtained
and from whom; not to protect themselves from criminal or mischievous misuse, but coverage
from catastrophic failures resulting in injury or death to the user.

to the public, they would.

Unless they're using in an agricultural / ranching use.

I mean, I live in northern Virginia and can't think of any place that I could go and start randomly burning sh*t down.

I can make a flamethrower out a can of cheap hairspray and a cigarette lighter. So laws would have to carefully crafted.

Is the best.