Just how viable would a flamethrower be for self defense?

>>32609022
bump for intrest

Depends are you in little Tokyo or in a gook neighborhood?

>>32609022
how viable is wearing a 30lb steel backpack that shoots jellied fuel on your enemies that sticks, splashes and burns them alive within 100+ feet.

>>32609022
>burn down house you are trying to protect

Roasted Dindu is pretty nice, but not worth scorching the TV you're trying to stop him from stealing

Just shave off some hair and burn it while watching LiveLeak Africa to get the same effect

>>32609022
Fuck-heavy metal backpacks with huge nozzles are not usually a convenient self-defense option.

I mean, yes, setting people on fire works for self-defense, but these are more for self-offense.

>>32609036
For the sake of discussion, let's say this is taking place inside of an average house in the shitty part of Chicago.

Not very, they were used for clearing hedges in Europe and Vietnam, and for burning out any oxygen in pillboxes and V-Cong holes.
Suffocating is the main tactic here, setting a fucker aflame is just a bonus.

Only works indoors.

>>32609022
As awesome as they are I would never ever ever ever fucking EVER use one. I was in a house fire when I was younger and had my legs burnt pretty badly. They are 100% functional but I can never wear shorts without scaring children. Fire scares the ever living shit out of me and even the very slightest chance of it malfunctioning and covering my in lethal fire is too fucking spoopy.

>>32609052
Then Arson is the best idea here, so a flamethrower is much less practical than a molotov cocktail.
Or you could go the psychological route and let Jaiqon and Dementhol watch as you light the pilot light and test it a few feet to their left.

>>32609052
You are better off driving around with a gau minigun on the back of a Cadillac just so you can drive around the nigger neighborhood comfortably then unload on their shit tier government housing

>>32609022
As much as a ANIT TANK rifle is. Why are you standing outside? Come right in..

>>32609063
>setting a fucker aflame is just a bonus.
it bears repeating

>>32609022
>Just how viable would a flamethrower be for self defense?

Proof that there really ARE stupid questions.

>>32610058
litl rude desu

>>32609022
I should imagine it would become rather painful old boy.

>>32610216
For you

>>32609043
Napalm is illegal, but I'm sure a substitute could be found.

It would be hella sick if I read somewhere in the news someone defended and ultimately burned his house but Kentucky Fried some dindus

>>32609022
Yeah sure have fun burning your house down

>>32610058
There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people.

If by self defense you mean burn down the ghetto before it comes for you then pretty good defensively.
Otherwise, no.

I personally think it has validity but mostly just due to the fact that I hate spiders and think it'd be the most effective way to deal with a swarm of them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9126583/A-plague-of-spiders-caused-by-severe-floods-in-Australia.html

Probably the best possible thing. I don't think anyone on this planet would fuck with someone wielding a flame thrower, even if they had a gun. That shit puts fear into your heart.