I hope this kid blows himself up.

*hem hem*

About weapons.

To be honest, the inherent problem with weapons and especially this flamethrower is that their main intent is to kill. That is what the item is built with the intent for use and why one is purchased. Now, you might intend to kill in self-defence, or only kill animals, but the idea is still that it kills things, and what it kills is up to the user. That is the intent of weapons.

Now, a car for example, could kill. But that is not the intent of the item. Designers often keep in mind ways to lessen its' ability to kill, like seat belts and air-bags, and special breaks and the like. Cars have uses and are intended for use for things, not killing.

Anyways, this is rather "Stupid", this item, if it was made for any other purpose then a mental exercise. If someone made a flamethrower for any use a flamethrower was intended for (Killing) then obviously its' a danger. I don't see why you'd make it for anything it wasn't intended for, as there would certainly be a better tool and you are putting people at unnessecary risk. If it was made just to see if such an item could indeed be made, then perhaps, but the person should have been more prepared to make people aware of the dangers of making an item that uses flame.

Ren Janggar

S'il, why the need to wield a gun, if you're not going to use it to kill something?

That's the main aspect I don't seem to be able to grasp.

There are lots of people that are into firearms and don't kill a thing.

Clay, or "skeet" shooters - Guys who compete in moving target practice using shotguns against fragile ceramic frisbees.

Target shooters - this can be anything as simple as pistol and rifle ranges, to full out marksmanship competitions in which participants use custom-made competition guns that are tailored to their shooting styles.

IDPA, or "scenario" shooters - these guys are similar to target shooters, but compete on ranges that offer multiple degrees of action and difficulty, such as advancing & firing, quick-acquiring & target discrimination, and dozens of other types of courses. This is usually relegated to pistols, and requires an extraordinary amount of discipline and technique.

Collectors - simply, people who collect firearms for whatever significance. This can be geographic, historical, or other reasons. I know some people who have a collection of world war 2 main battle rifles, while some people collect specific guns from certain gunmakers, etc. These people are often involved in speculative gun trading to similar collectors. More often than not, collectors won't even load their pieces, let alone fire them.

Curio & Replica - these guys are usually into the more historical aspect of guns, but unlike collectors, they expand to include modern reproductions of old guns. This is especially big in terms of black powder weapons, in which a person may go to a range for the experience of hand-loading with loose powder, wadding, and ball.

As you can see, not everybody who is into firearms is doing so in order to kill something. Its just not that simple.

As for the original topic brought up in this thread, well here's the opinion of a gun owner:

If the guy who made the flamethrower is proficient enough in terms of engineering, and has enough know-how to work on a project, then more power to him.

If it's a guy that is more or less bullshitting his way through the Anarchist's Cookbook, and not paying credence to design tolerances and other attention to safety, then he's pretty much out of his gourd.

I have no problem with somebody making something incredibly kickass like a homemade flamethrower -- if they're safe about it and know what they're doing. This is no different than me not having any problem with somebody owning and discharging a firearm, if they know and use safety & common sense. You can ask anybody who's gone shooting with me. I'm anal retentive about being safe. Once we're on the same page and doing things the right way, then we can have fun.

Although, I don't think he should have posted the instructions on how to build it on the Internet. Next thing we know Iraqi Insurgets will be flaming US troops with these things.

Not really, as he stated the components he bought to make the thing cost over $100.

Assuming an Iraqi insurgent has an internet connection, can translate english to arabic readily, enough funds to purchase scarce building resources, AND the tools to make it happen, he still would have to tote the ridiculously cumbersome apparatus on his back and get within 20 feet of troops to use it.

He has better range, effectiveness and economy with either an AK-47 or a molotov cocktail.

That being said, I hope as many Iraqi insurgents try and build this as possible.

I dunno, the price of PVC went up a lot just a little while ago. They might not be able to afford it. ;)

I'm just hanging onto the hope that someone might say to themselves oneday,

"Hey, you know, this hobby just isn't worth contributing to the proliferation of guns and gun culture on this planet."

I suppose I'm oozing elements of hypocrisy in this argument, since I collect swords, if for decorative and historical purposes only.



The main thing is, we don't need guns.

Simple as that.

My apologies for not replying sooner - I was at work and enjoying the life that I apparently don't have.

Anyways. On this matter it's easy to see that people here are going to have to simply agree to disagree. There's no loss of pride on either side in this sort of thing - quite the contrary. Agreeing to disagree shows a level of tolerance and maturity that not many possess these days.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are those that enjoy the aspect of having firearms, and those that don't. Neither side will really understand the other; that's easy to see. I thank those of you who did answer my questions with thought-out answers and reasons as to why they hold aversions to guns, and I hope myself and Charley were at least a little helpful in helping people understand why we enjoy shooting. We don't kill things and as odd as this may sound, while I'm very militaristic by nature (due to living and growing up in the military; as well as simple interest), the last thing I want to do is take a life or shoot someone.

Though beating up and tormenting siblings does not count, I must add.

And as for the one person who saw fit to try and flame me, I'm sorry you see things the way you do. If you would have taken the time to read, you would have seen that I never once uttered a troll-esque remark to anyone - instead I remained calm and professional. If you 'quit the internet' for reasons illustrated in this thread, then I'm sorry. This is just how life is. No one is going to have the same views as you and if you feel the need to resort to personal attacks and name-calling when someone disagrees with something you said, then life is going to be very tough. There really was no need to insinuate that I have no life; I do in fact go outside, and I do in fact participate in outside activities away from the computer. So please don't make rash assumptions that you know nothing about.

Ren Janggar

I suppose I'm oozing elements of hypocrisy in this argument, since I collect swords, if for decorative and historical purposes only.

Correct. It is a hypocritical stance in the matter.

The main thing is, we don't need guns.

Simple as that.

The fallacy here being that you assume that everything must be established on a "needs" basis. Were this the case, I'd ask you why you "need" to be collecting swords, or why you "need" to be posting on an internet forum.