Home Main Category General Firearms

Thoughts On the M2 Flamethrower

2»

Replies

  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Rocketman wrote: »
    Is this dude just a British kid?

    I is got a crew dude!
  • AntonioAntonio Senior Member Posts: 2,696 Senior Member
    I think that portable flamethrowers were poorly employed as front-line weapons; pretty scary and with huge psychological effect for both sides, but something to be better used AFTER conventional weaponry was employed against intended target. Flamethrower-equipped tanks became a much better solution for frontal assault, but unfortunately such options wasn't available all the time, so they had to endure with what they had on hand.

    Apparently it was employed a lot in the late Pacific island-hopping campaign (And by some of the combatants in the European theater, specially when dealing with enemy fortifications) where Japanese defensive tactics changed from beach front defensive positions and human-wave tactics to inland hidden, heavily fortified and underground-interconnected web of strongholds designed to "revive" after being overrun and apparently put out of work, and fight to the last defender. Only way to effectively "clean" these positions was to incinerate all its ordnance and occupants, or at least suffocate the latter until a demolition charge could be used safely to close the position for good.

    Sometimes such weapons were also employed to reveal enemy positions camouflaged under heavy foliage, but still to my opinion the most risky work for any infantryman. I recall they were employed as portable weaponry well up to 'Nam, along with other latter conflicts (Iran-Irak war?), but currently surpassed by much better and a LOT more "user-friendly" (And range, risk and accuracy wise) weaponry such as RPGs, guided munitions, etc.

    Probably the only piece I'd gladly leave out of my fully-functional WWII U.S. infantry small arms collection.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Flamethrowers are my favourite type of firearm due to the simplicity and how badass they are, who doesnt want to burn out enemy positions in Iwo Jima and spray fire like a dragon? They come under section 5 firearms and most people hate the device thinking it is evil and inhumane and to be honest i think it benefits as a tool as much as it does a weapon, you can clear out hornet nests with it in the back yard, melt snow off your driveway during the winter, clear out weeds and if some crooks decide to pick your house for trouble, i think 50ft of napalm coming out of the front porch is enough to make them run a few states outta there. It'd be a great home defense tool with a big fear factor making sure the crooks won't come back unless you burned your own house down in the process or its the UK cause everyone knows and the British Government have made it clear that you are not allow to defend yourself unless you have already been stabbed up by the intruder or you are looking for a long time in a prison cell.

    Anyway what are you folks thoughts about the trusty old M2 flamethrower?



    And that is the injustice. To defend yourself is a God Given Natural right.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Warmaster94Warmaster94 New Member Posts: 20 New Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    And that is the injustice. To defend yourself is a God Given Natural right.

    I very much agree, The UKs self defense laws are in need of serious adjustments and logical explanations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJV-kXm0L3E
    Who Dares Wins
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    And that is the injustice. To defend yourself is a God Given Natural right.

    snake please do not be taken in by such utter dross.

    "The Law and Evidential Sufficiency.

    Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.

    The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:

    "It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

    The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

    "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

    Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3.
    However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.


    Reasonable Force

    A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

    self-defence; or
    defence of another; or
    defence of property; or
    prevention of crime; or
    lawful arrest.


    In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

    was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
    was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

    The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).

    To that extent it is a subjective test.
    There is, however, an objective element to the test.
    The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

    It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);

    "If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ...".......................
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,484 Senior Member
    So no Castle law in the Castles
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    BAMAAK wrote: »
    So no Castle law in the Castles

    We have The Law and no need for castles.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    How many miscreants have risen up out of the graveyard and committed another offense against their fellow human beings after someone defends himself properly the first time? Catch and release "justice" simply educates the criminal in ways to get away with his next crime!
    Jerry
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Flamethrowers are my favourite type of firearm.................. and if some crooks decide to pick your house for trouble, i think 50ft of napalm coming out of the front porch is enough to make them run a few states outta there. ........

    Really?
  • Warmaster94Warmaster94 New Member Posts: 20 New Member
    Shush if someone came in my home with the intention of robbing me and possibly killing me i'd ike the right to put them down. I would not want to go through tons of legal proceedings related to "reasonable force" If one is defending himself or herself in one's own home, they are using any weapon in a defensive role against the home invader. If the UK were attacked by nuclear missiles then no retaliation should be taken because the weapons used to defend the UK is possible to harm the enemy. It does not seem right. The only part of the UK with near to reasonable self defence laws is Northen Ireland where you may own a pistol or other firearm for self defence.
    Who Dares Wins
  • Warmaster94Warmaster94 New Member Posts: 20 New Member
    shush wrote: »
    Really?

    Yes a flamethrower is designated as a section 5 firearm.
    Who Dares Wins
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,954 Senior Member
    Shush if someone came in my home with the intention of robbing me and possibly killing me i'd ike the right to put them down. I would not want to go through tons of legal proceedings related to "reasonable force" If one is defending himself or herself in one's own home, they are using any weapon in a defensive role against the home invader. If the UK were attacked by nuclear missiles then no retaliation should be taken because the weapons used to defend the UK is possible to harm the enemy. It does not seem right. The only part of the UK with near to reasonable self defence laws is Northen Ireland where you may own a pistol or other firearm for self defence.

    Let me see if I understand you.

    You want to use a flame thrower for home defense? Maybe if you knew an invading horde was headed your way, and you had time to "load up", you could hold them off for a bit. For use in neutralizing a single intrude, though, it doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, even in the most gun friendly states on my side of the pond, killing a suspected intruder outside of your domicile is illegal. The so-called "Castle Doctrine" allows one to protect themselves only if an intruder is in their domicile. Hosing someone down in your yard (or is it garden) with a stream of fire is not going to end up well for you.

    And, if you use a flame thrower inside your house, that's just plain stupid.

    Also consider this. If you wake up in the middle of the night, and realize that you have an intruder, how long will it take you to prepare if you primary defense weapon is a flame thrower.

    Get a shotgun or a good hand gun and learn to use it. Even a taser makes more sense than a flame thrower.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    ............Iv'e always wished to have a Browning Hi-Power since it is among my favourite firearms but it will never be possible in the UK due to the handgun ban of 1997 which is extremely dissapointing aswell as the rest of the UKs backward opressing gun laws....
    shush wrote: »
    ...Not available to own in England but still available and in use in some parts of the UK....

    http://forums.gunsandammo.com/showthread.php?30363-My-Firearms-Dream
    .............. The only part of the UK with near to reasonable self defence laws is Northen Ireland where you may own a pistol or other firearm for self defence.

    You do seem to have changed the UK Firearms Act there sweetmeat or did you just check on the interweb after the clue I gave you?

    Utter, utter bollocks!
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    .............Get a shotgun or a good hand gun and learn to use it. Even a taser makes more sense than a flame thrower.

    He is not certified to own them.

    I do not think he is certified to be out on his own.

    He is certainly not certified to debate in adult company.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,954 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    He is not certified to own them.

    I do not think he is certified to be out on his own.

    He is certainly not certified to debate in adult company.

    Don't hold back, Shush. Tell us how you really feel.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,128 Senior Member
    I think it is a great idea. I will tell the bad guy to stop attacking me for a minute so I can strap on my flamethrower, open up the valves, and get the pilot light going. Then I will toast their ass at 20 feet (a bit over 6 meters for you folks across the pond) from across my living room.

    Mods-- this should be moved to the Self Defense Forum.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    Don't hold back, Shush. Tell us how you really feel.

    Was I too harsh, do you think?

    After all;
    cpj wrote: »
    For one, I don't trust you. There. I said it. You put off a bad vibe.

    If cpj thinks he gives off bad vibes, he can not be all that bad.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Yes a flamethrower is designated as a section 5 firearm.

    In the United Kingdom, a flamethrowers is a "prohibited weapon" under section 5, part 1 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968 , not a firearm.

    Numpty.


    cpj was correct, bad vibes man, bad vibes.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    In the United Kingdom, a flamethrowers is a "prohibited weapon" under section 5, part 1 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968 , not a firearm.

    Numpty.


    cpj was correct, bad vibes man, bad vibes.

    Thanks! New word for calling those Numpties I work with!

    Heck, Numpticrat even works!
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Mods-- this should be moved to the Star Wars Defense Forum- - - - -as soon as we get one!

    Fixed it!

    :rotflmao:
    Jerry
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,715 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I think it is a great idea. I will tell the bad guy to stop attacking me for a minute so I can strap on my flamethrower, open up the valves, and get the pilot light going. Then I will toast their ass at 20 feet (a bit over 6 meters for you folks across the pond) from across my living room.

    Mods-- this should be moved to the Self Defense Forum.

    First call the fire Dept as the house will be burning, too, to, two, tew, tu, 2
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • Elk creekElk creek Senior Member Posts: 6,463 Senior Member
    All these kids with an overactive imagination and the latest edition of Call of Duty need one thing, well two. First they need a mentor in thier life to show them how the world works. Not the fantasy world of rocket launchers, full-auto flame throwers and health pack do-overs kinda BS world but real life. Real responsibility, real relationships and real respect of themselves and others. Second, contribute what you can for the good of your community! Warmaster94, we are a good group of guys here and pretty understanding and tons of life experience, Learn!
    Aim higher, or get a bigger gun.
  • Warmaster94Warmaster94 New Member Posts: 20 New Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    Let me see if I understand you.

    You want to use a flame thrower for home defense? Maybe if you knew an invading horde was headed your way, and you had time to "load up", you could hold them off for a bit. For use in neutralizing a single intrude, though, it doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, even in the most gun friendly states on my side of the pond, killing a suspected intruder outside of your domicile is illegal. The so-called "Castle Doctrine" allows one to protect themselves only if an intruder is in their domicile. Hosing someone down in your yard (or is it garden) with a stream of fire is not going to end up well for you.

    And, if you use a flame thrower inside your house, that's just plain stupid.

    Also consider this. If you wake up in the middle of the night, and realize that you have an intruder, how long will it take you to prepare if you primary defense weapon is a flame thrower.

    Get a shotgun or a good hand gun and learn to use it. Even a taser makes more sense than a flame thrower.

    I personally wouldn't use a flamethrower obviously I was just mentioning it, and shush if you are reading this which you probably are, when I mentioned the Northen Ireland pistol law I already knew what it was I was just talking about the 1997 firearms act in Scotland and England at the time.
    Who Dares Wins
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,713 Senior Member
    Yes Shush and his crew made it very clear, I am a "12 year old" rambo wannabe who lives in my mums basement and trains on Call Of Duty for 20 hours a day.


    This explains much.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    This explains much.


    Being on the interweb means never having to say you're sorry................. I mean........... to explain.
  • john.41john.41 Member Posts: 316 Member
    May not be not 12, I'm guessing the 94 is his birth year, everything else.......spot on!:jester:
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement