Flame-thrower scooter owner arrested

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with the arrest, it does not matter what Dox47 thinks about a propane flame vs burning oil. If the man was to activate his flame machine close to a farm machine which is transporting straw, near dry grass, near a timber yard then he could start a nasty fire.

I am sure that a propane flame or a petrol flame are both as good as each other for setting fire to things.

You only further prove my point about England and it's citizens. It's your nanny state after all, thankfully I don't have to live with it.

Also, as a degree toting expert in firearms, I'm really curious how a flaming exhaust pipe is considered a "firearm" as it's not propelling any kind of projectile, at the most I could see it being considered an unlicensed pyrotechnic device, but that's a far less serious charge. As said, I've long since given up on common sense from the British legal system.

UK law can consider a device which discharges something other than a bullet or shot as a firearm. That is why electric shock devices such as stun guns are delt with under firearms law.

Please see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/3485.html Firearms Act 1968 section 5.

where it reminds us that under 'subsection (1)(b), includes "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing...".'

I think that a machine which emits jets of flame would count under that part of the act.

By the way please stop slagging off UK law, no one is forcing you to join us in the UK.

If I may ask, where do you think being angry will get us? It seems to me that if we be violent, they control the army and police to use against us and we'd be the ones paying to clean up the mess.

You would be right in saying the British Government is overstepping its marks, currently, however none of us for a second believe that creating the opportunity to remove those individuals who choose to ignore their personal responsibilities such as raising a dog not to attack anything that moves or not putting flame projecting devices in machines traditional found places surrounded by flammable viscous liquids. That's a survival reflex on a large scale, little more.

I also notice you mention "common sense" You do realize that wouldn't work as an argument on the grounds that common sense is a knowledge learnt from society. As you haven't been brought up in the society you are judging, you can't really say what they should know without being considered ignorant of that point.

Ah yes, America. Imho one of the biggest gripes I have with America is that it seems to the lack of self sacrifice or personal responsibility inside America itself. Americans whinge to the back teeth every time it comes to paying taxes and they hate the welfare & health care of their fellow man to the point of the individual's death. They go on about the right of any American to a gun and then unsuitable candidates go and ignore their responsibilities without fear of persecution because of the state's inability to enforce any arms law. Perhaps that's just the media stories I can get from the US - please discuss.

So the fact that British law apparantly has no idea of what comprises a "firearm" is supposed to convince me that the place isn't as nutty as I thought? I thought defining the exhaust pipe mod as a firearm was pushing the boundaries of the term, but considering stun-guns as such is beyond absurd, I mean we're not even in the same mechanical ballpark here.





No.

I'm not suggesting violence, voting for people that aren't running on a nanny state platform would be a step in the right direction.



It's a different world view, we Americans manage to get along surprisingly well considering all the dangerous things lying around this country. To mangle a famous quote, we'd rather deal with the inconveniences of freedom than those of lack of it. In other words, we (mostly) don't believe in punishing the innocent 99% on account of the moronic 1%.



I would think that such ideas as self reliance, expectations of privacy and general liberty would be fairly universal, but the government and voting population of the UK would seem to quash that notion.



I'm quoting this to preserve it for prosperity next time the Brits on this board get all pissy about having their country critiqued by an American, I'll be referring back to this gem often.

Finding one would be nice. All the political parties are advocating state regulation into some affairs or another. I can hardly blame them really, the first thing that got de regulated was the financial market and as it turns out, we now own the banks due to their own incompetency at self regulation. A poor example of self reliance but one nevertheless.


How, in your eyes, is this bike law punishing the 99%? What about murder? Where does the line draw between the two? Someone is always going to be lower hand, no matter what the law states.


Well, I have no expectations of privacy - life's kinda convinced me that's an illusion. Society invades my privacy and no amount of nanny state would make any difference to that. I've also been self reliant (as a person can get in society) before now. I've been completely independent of the government too. I also don't consider being coerced by the state or having many restrictions in life, short of those that would irreparably harm society.

Possibly the fox hunting ban would be tyranny but I've never wanted to go fox hunting.


I'd like to point out that response is evading the debate, entirely.
Feel free to quote it, though, I'm entirely happy with it. I don't believe it to be the best point you can make on an unfair critique of the US as I've stated it as an opinion, I've mentioned I may not have all the facts needed to make it a well rounded view of the US and I have not have not stated my opinion as fact - unlike this:



Evaluation of evidence is not evidence in itself. Which brings up the interesting point - isn't enforcing your opinion going beyond critique? Isn't it also an attack on those personal freedoms you mentioned?

My point is that it's the nanny state that actually invades your privacy, through pervasive surveillance and through numerous personal restrictions because the state doesn't trust you not to harm yourself or others.




I wasn't trying to engage in a debate about America and it's issues, that would be wildly off topic for this thread. Their are plenty of threads in PPR discussing America from a number of perspectives, those would be a more appropriate place to ask your questions.



I'm not enforcing my opinion, I have no means of doing so. Remember that the actual statutes of UK law were quoted, and it's not under dispute that they treat a stun gun as a "firearm". When I say that that's absurd, I'm drawing on my degree in gunsmithing and my general expertise on the subject of firearms and their design, so in fact I'm a qualified expert rendering my professional judgment on the matter. Remember also that a large portion of my critique is that increasing government involvement in their lives seems to be what the voting population of the UK actually wants, the cause of which I won't speculate on here. I'm not attacking their right to sign their freedoms away, but merely expressing my opinion on the wisdom of doing so.

Corporations also do that, through membership cards, electronic records, security cameras and the rules and regulations of entering company premises. Whether you like it or not, something will tell you exactly what you will and will not do.

And before you say that companies have their own land - I will have to point all public or unoccupied (10 years) spaces in the UK are owned by the HM Queen Elizabeth II and administered by HM Government. So, no legally free land till international waters.

Besides why on an Aspie forum do you debate the nanny state? A lot of the people on here may well need the mollycoddling.



Yeah, I was thinking of posting that again elsewhere tbh. Still, I was just wondering how you were answer if the question came up 'What was your response?"

You didn't say that was a judgment, based on professional knowledge, you said it was a fact. No qualification in the world will be able to make judgment fact.

My bad I meant to write 'promoting'.


Prehaps as I have mentioned prior, they atempting to protect themselves from the corporate world.Better the devil you know than the devil you don't? At the end of the day, imo, they are pretty much the same anyway. They'll take from you what they haven't themselves earnt, give you as little of what you need as possible and expect you to be grateful!

As always it's been grand. Congrats on the degree, btw.