Saturday, September 5, 2015

Who's Buying These Things? One Guess




TYWIKIWDBI

As reported by Ars Technica:
Business is skyrocketing higher than ever due to the discussion on prohibition," Chris Byars, the CEO of the Ion Productions Team based in Troy, Michigan, told Ars by e-mail. "I’m a huge supporter of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Own whatever you like, unless you use it in a manner that is harmful to another or other’s property. We’ve received a large amount of support from police, fire, our customers, and interested parties regarding keeping them legal."

Byars added that the company has sold 350 units at $900 each, including shipping, in recent weeks. That's in addition to the $150,000 the company raised on IndieGoGo.

The Ion product, known as the XM42, can shoot fire over 25 feet and has more than 35 seconds of burn time per tank of fuel. With a full tank of fuel, it weighs just 10 pounds...

Shockingly, there are no current federal regulations on the possession, manufacture, sale, or use of flamethrowers.

"These devices are not regulated as they do not qualify as firearms under the National Firearms Act," Corey Ray, a spokesman with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, told Ars by e-mail.
At the state level, California requires a permit while Maryland outright bans them—Ars is not aware of any other state-level regulation. The Inhumane Weapons Convention, which the United States signed in 1981, forbids "incendiary weapons," including flamethrowers. However, this document is only an agreement between nation-states and their militaries, and it did not foresee individual possession...

23 comments:

  1. Sort of cool looking, but I could buy a couple of decent firearms for the kids for what it costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, sort of cool. It honestly would never occur to me to design and build such a thing. But whoever did seems to have done a fine job. I went to their website and it looks like they did quality work. Its also remarkable that they made such an improvement over the old WWII version, though my guess is that it just uses regular gas and not the jellied variety.
      Its also amusing that they built something that seems to be pretty much legal everywhere and now everyone is going to do their little freak out procedure when they realize that someone got ahead of the ingenuity power curve of various governments.
      The last time this happened was with a 3-d printable handgun. Though this seems to be much higher quality. There has actually been a crime committed pretty recently using a flamethrower,

      "Police say that the suspect went to a nearby construction site and found a flamethrower in a construction truck. Thompson then went back, allegedly broke a window in the front office and stuck the flamethrower through the window -- apparently attempting to set the building on fire, according to WGCL."

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-alabama-man-used-flamethrower-to-set-motel-on-fire/

      I have to admit, I didn't know that construction companies stocked flamethrowers as part of their equipment. Though, as you can see, there are already laws on the books to deal with misuse of these items,

      Police soon arrived and arrested the suspect, says the station. He was charged with arson and his bond was set at $10,000.

      Delete
    2. FJ said it all.

      Delete
    3. Hey, SSG, even though you and I aren't Marines, I can't talk about flamethrowers without thinking of this Chesty Puller quote. Now that guy was sheer, 200 proof badass.

      Delete
    4. Of course SS thinks it's cool. I'm sure he watches films of flame throwers burning humans alive. He loves to train people how to kill. He loves to watch people being killed.

      Delete
    5. I enjoyed the Chesty Puller quote. In the summer of 1970. every night before going to sleep, lying at attention in my bunk on Parris Island, I shouted out with all the others, "Good night Chesty Puller wherever you are." Then the drill instructor said, "Reeeady, sleep."

      Delete
  2. I remember that I could have ordered a toy flamethrower for my G.I. Joe in about maybe 1966 or 1967. That's why I guessed that they were still in use during the Viet Nam police action [sic]. I was right.

    Any gun nut who would be insane enough to translate his irrational support of the availability of combat-ready weapons to include a dangerous device such as this is just a sick fuck with no real reason to be a part of society.

    I'm sure there are plenty of such people that crazy. That's a given nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome coffee-loving libertarian.

      I look forward to doing battle with you on the common ground of wits and brainpower.

      There's a good chance you already have me outgunned!

      Delete
  3. Shockingly, there are no current federal regulations on the possession, manufacture, sale, or use of flamethrowers.

    "Shockingly"--that cracks me up.

    I'm sure they're a great deal of fun, but I imagine fuel would get pricey.

    Still, I'll happily celebrate the deaths of anyone who wants to ban them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be having fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't go wrong quoting Mr. H.L. Mencken.

      orlin sellers

      Delete
  5. is gun nuts are all such juvenile idiots. Shooting fire with a thing like that is your idea of fun. That's ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shooting fire with a thing like that is your idea of fun.

      Um . . . so if "a thing like that" doesn't merit your approval for enjoyable fire shooting, what would you suggest one use for the recreational projection of fiery destructive power?

      I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

      Delete
    2. People have different ideas of what is fun, Mike. That's the great thing about liberty oriented people. Even when it's not our bag of tea, we say, "as long as you're not causing harm (that's real harm, not the way you guys rationalize it), then knock your socks off."

      Delete
    3. But guns are causing harm (30,000 gun shot deaths a year) so I take it you will agree to ban guns TS.

      Delete
    4. But there are over 300,000,000 guns, so it seems a whole bunch of them aren't causing harm. Punish those who do wrong, and leave the rest of us alone. That's what I mean about real, and direct harm.

      Delete
    5. Typical gun loon thinking. Since the 30,000 gun shot deaths only represent 1%, that's acceptable. The fact that 1% represents 30,000 dead doesn't mean shit to gun loons. That's the despicable character of gun loons.

      Delete
    6. Rather 0.01%

      That's typical anti thinking. Punish the other 99% or in this case 99.99% for the actions of the others.

      I am the 99.99%, and I have a voice.

      Delete
    7. Keep cheering for 30,000 dead TS, it's part of your despicable character.

      Delete
  6. Flamethrowers are nothing new, not by a long shot. No pun intended. I am 56 years old and I have my grandfathers antique flamethrower that is kerosene fueled with hand pump pressurized and I have one thats over 25 years old that runs on propane. These are common tools for brush burning, building drainage ditch pipes, heating steel rebar before concrete pours and much, much more. Only you antis can invent new things to relate to guns and gun owners. Its just pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now slap a whole pig on the end of this weapon, it will be done in no time at all.

    ReplyDelete