• over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 个月前

    From my understanding, the reason most states allow them is largely because they’re very useful tools in certain fields of construction, particularly for melting tar.

    If I’m mistaken, or if they also have other legitimate uses, feel free to correct me or add additional information…

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 个月前

        A flamethrower is a ranged incendiary device.

        What do you consider a flamethrower?

        How far is ranged?

        Construction uses what I would call torches, not flamethrowers

        There is very few cases where you want to “throw” flames. It’s inefficient. Keeping the flame and the material close is preferred.

        Giant pile of tar you want to set on fire as fast as possible? I guess a flamethrower is effective. Burning brush, anything where you’re catching something on fire so it spreads.

        They use “flamethrowers” on bitumen roofs. But the idea behind the tool is to not throw the flames as far as possible.

        I’d define flamethrower as “An incendiary device that disperses uncontrollable flames at a distance”

        • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 个月前

          For me the required characteristics would be that it dispenses a burning liquid at a distance in a controlled, directed manner.

          • If it dispenses burning gas it’s not very useful as a weapon and is really just a big gas burner. Roofing torches, blowtorches, and weed burners fall into this category.
          • If it doesn’t cover a meaningful distance it’s also not very useful as a weapon and is essentially just a leaky container. Driptorches fall into this category.
          • If it dispenses the burning material in an uncontrolled or undirected manner it’s either an incendiary bomb/grenade of some sort or an accident. It might be a weapon but not one I’d call a flamethrower.
          • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 个月前

            distance in a controlled, directed manner.

            Interesting take.

            You’re thinking of a flamethrower as it has to be a weapon and trying to fit the definition around that.

            If I had a device that throws flames, let’s say 100 decimeters. Is it a flamethrower? Am I really controlling the flames at the farthest distance? I would say no because the objective of the device is to throw the flame as far as possible. Compared to a torch that could burn a bullseye at 100 decimeters, flamethrower would just burn the whole target.

            • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 个月前

              I typically only hear of the term “flamethrower” in a weapons context so yes, I’d say that it has to be a weapon. Yes, you can have a noncombat device that projects a flame but those are typically called something else (like “burner” or “torch”). I’d expect most people to first think of a weapon when they hear “flamethrower”.

              And I would assume that your device’s flame is still controlled and directed – it may have some spread but you still choose where to point the device even when it’s active. You probably also have a means of turning the device off, offering further control. So your device fits the definition, even if it might be crude.

              An incendiary grenade would be an example of a device that offers no control or direction. Once it goes off it releases all the fire everywhere within range. Another example would be a burning gas well – it might project its fire in a fairly predictable fashion and in a clear direction (up) but you can’t easily turn it off or point it somewhere else.

              • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 个月前

                1000 centimeters sounds ridiculous

                Guess I could have said 1 decameter

                1 decimeter is a 1/3 of a foot. Assumed a flamethrower shoots >30ft. 30×3=90. ~100 decimeters.

                You could change it to 10 meters easily if you prefer it that way. A third of a foot or 9/10 of a yard. I find it easier to compare it to a third of a foot.

                Like I’m 6ft tall. I’m 18 decimeters, or 1.8 meters. Otherwise, I would have said 2 yards or 2 meters.

                • Revan343@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 个月前

                  Ten meters would have been the obvious, decimeters aren’t really used in my experience; either it’s precise enough I’m measuring in mm, large enough I’m measuring in metres, or so imprecise that I’m eyeballing in inches and feet

        • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 个月前

          Flamethrowers don’t use gas. It uses liquid or solid. That’s why real flamethrowers can be used at ranges of 50+ ft. Often times even higher than that.

      • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 个月前

        Flamethrowers typically set fire to a stream of flammable liquid, like gasoline (as a trivial example). Torches use gas, or gas mixtures.

        The inherent range differences are a meter (maybe 2) for torches, and flamethrowers do 50-100 m (source: Wikipedia). Just in case that isn’t clear, those aren’t the same category of device.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 个月前

      They are also very useful for controlled burns.

      The most important thing is that nobody is using them maliciously so there is no incentive to ban them.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 个月前

      Traditional flamethrowers have fuel gelling additives that cause the burning fuel to stick to the victim, making them considerably more dangerous than a long flamed torch.

  • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 个月前

    See I can’t see colour, but fun fact, flame based weed abatement systems can be easily purchased in many parts of California, and they are basically just a flame thrower attachment for propane tanks.

      • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 个月前

        It is is a hadheld nozzle that ejects propane that is on fire ~3ft for the purpose of burning weeds, I think that is enough to count as a “flame” “thrower”

        • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 个月前

          As someone who uses a propane burner for blacksmithing, I am constantly reminding my wife “IT’S NOT A FLAMETHROWER!” because once not long after we met, my old decrepit one sprung a leak out the side and from her viewing angle she thought it had set me on fire.

          In fairness, mine is designed for a 1ft flame, but I did use a weed burner in my very first forge. About 2ft if I blasted propane without a regulator.

          I’m not ready to die on the hill, but I will gladly throw up some polite resistance upon it.

      • Hugin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 个月前

        Yeah a real flamethrower fires a line of sticky flaming liquid up to 50". It’s like saying a BB gun is the same thing as a M4.

        • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 个月前

          The first flamethrowers date to the 7th century. No they aren’t modern military flamethrowers but as with the description “commercial flamethrowers are generally blowtorches using gaseous fuels such as propane”. No they don’t have the same range or lethality but saying they cant both be flamethrowers is saying a BB doesn’t shoot projectiles because it’s not as the same projectiles and range of a military assault rifle.

      • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 个月前

        Not all flamethrowers throw napalm, as seen flamethrowers predate napalm. A flamethrower made to abate weeds is not nearly as powerful as a military grade one, but it still throws flame. So even if you can’t buy a fancy flamethrower that shoots out 20+ feet, you can have some fun with a little propane tank based weed abatement “flamethrower”. I wasn’t trying to kick up an argument on the technicalities of what is a flamethrower, but your arguments are the weakest thing to support your idea.

    • 3ntranced@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 个月前

      Torch, not flame thrower.

      Vaporous propellant ignition is a torch, usually butane not propane as propane leaves residue on the glass, and burns differently.

      Flame throwers are literally a pee stream of fuel that is ignited on the handle by the operator. There is only destructive use with flamethrower as well due to the lack of accurate control.

  • KingJalopy @lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 个月前

    Remember the time Elon made a flame thrower and even that was a piece of shit too?

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 个月前

      Yup. Strangely, that’s why I got perma-banned from Reddit, just for commenting that the thing exists, and posting a link for reference.

      • KingJalopy @lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 个月前

        Lol nice. I got banned once I found out about Lemmy. After that I simply went to a thread which had a particularly shitty power mod and literally just said, “sounds like something a cringe reddit person would say”.

        Boom. Permanent admin ban.

  • Belgdore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 个月前

    I assume it’s because it’s hard to come up with a legal definition for flamethrower that doesn’t exclude things like blow torches, and there aren’t a lot of incidents involving flamethrowers

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 个月前

      The difference isn’t really that complicated; a flamethrower sprays flaming liquid, a blowtorch sprays flaming gas

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 个月前

        Yeah but I can set up my oxy acetylene rig to throw huge beams of fire. To a layman, it’ll look like a flame thrower.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 个月前

            Hardly matters when laws are largely enforced due to reports from the republic.

            What laymen understand to be true is effectively true when it comes to reporting and the subsequent investigation.

            I don’t want to be hassled by the cops because I’m cutting stuff in my garage and a nosy neighbor happens to look in when I’m lighting a torch.

  • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 个月前

    You can also make thermite and use it legally in every state! Although you do need certification to transport, so if you don’t have one just mix it on site