Fires Sparked By Utah Target Shooters Prompt Evacuations

Hugh Pickens writes "The Salt Lake City Tribune reports that more than 9,000 people have been driven from their homes by a wind-whipped wildfire started by two shooters at landfill popular with target shooters who won't face any charges because they were not breaking any laws. The fire was the 20th this year in Utah sparked by target shooting where low precipitation, dry heat and high winds have hit the West hard, exacerbating the risk that bullets may glance off rocks and create sparks. Despite the increasing problem, local agencies are stuck in a legal quandary — the state's zealous protection of gun rights leaves fire prevention to the discretion of individuals — a freedom that allows for the careless to shoot into dry hills and rocks. When bullets strike rock, heated fragments can break off and if the fragments make contact with dry grass, which can burn at 450 to 500 degrees, the right conditions can lead to wildfires. Utah Gov. Gary Herbert has called on Utahns to use more "common sense" in target shooting urging target shooters to use established indoor and outdoor ranges instead of tinder-dry public lands. "We can do better than that as Utahns," says Herbert, calling on shooters to "self-regulate," since legislation bars sheriff's officials from regulating firearms. "A lot of the problem we have out here is a lack of common sense.""

Re:Only in America...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Of course, the fact that no houses have "burned to a cinder" isn't really the issue, is it?

After all, it's the people who were killed that are important, right? Alas, noone has been killed either.

Note, from TFA, that the shooters tried to put the fire out, then called 911 when they couldn't. Which is exactly what you'd expect from them, whether or not the fire was actually started by their gunfire...

Re:Only in America...

[maxwell demon]

Does the word "accident" mean anything to you?

Does the word "negligence" mean anything to you?

Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything

[cptdondo]

Umm.... I shoot. A lot. And one of the basic tennets of shooting is knowing what you shoot at. If I'm shooting in a tinder-dry environment, that's probably not a good thing. And I should not do it. I should go to a firing range or something....

Gun ownership is about responsibility. A very vocal minority of gun owners have managed to ram "right to own and shoot guns anywhere anytime together with "guns do no harm and we're not responsible for what guns do". IMHO, as a gun owner, they should prosecute the people who started this. For all you know, they were shooting tracers.

Re:General observation

[NeutronCowboy]

The difference is that people will be held responsible if their camp fires get out of control: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/recreation/recreation_activities/camping.html [blm.gov] Granted, this is for camping on land managed by the BLM, and I don't know how that works for land managed by other public entities. But at least on the BLM site, I didn't find anything for holding people responsible for fires started through indiscriminate gun use. Furthermore, if it can be shown that you willfully started a fire by pouring gasoline out somewhere and lighting it with a match, you will be charged with arson pretty much anywhere.

So the reason that people are kinda pissed off about this is that you can be held responsible for not keeping fires under control, except if you started the fire with a gun. Then, it's just carry on, and next time, please be more careful.

Can't believe I have to explain that to you.

Re:Bunk.

[msauve]

You don't know what "brandishing" means. Let me help - "threatening manner" does not include... the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening... [utah.gov] 76-10-506, Utah Criminal Code

And, yes, although "brandishing" isn't defined as such in the code, that's what it is, using a weapon to intimidate or threaten [uslegal.com].

In exactly what way is carrying an unloaded weapon "irresponsible?"

Re:Bunk.

[517714]

It was not an assault rifle. Stop listening to a bunch of policemen (in this case), reporters and politicians who do not know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault weapon. The weapon in this case was the former. Just because it has a plastic and aluminum stock doesn't mean its an assault rifle or that its only purpose is killing people, en masse or otherwise. If you want to argue your point at least get your facts straight. Do you have an objection to someone carrying a semiautomatic rifle in public? Your objection to assault rifles is moot since open carry does not apply to them.

Re:Bunk.

[msauve]

First, what "open carry law?" He was charged with "disturbing the peace," precisely because he was violating no law, and that is so broad a charge it can be made to cover anything. Second, open carry is legal, so in what possible way was he "disobeying" it? He was peacefully carrying an unloaded weapon, exercising his right to bear arms. That's no different than someone carrying a "Stop Global Warming" sign to exercise their right to free speech. If someone feels threatened by either, that's their problem.

Re:General observation

[ComfortablyAmbiguous]

Utah resident here, just over the freeway from the fire. The area in question, like all of the major Utah fires this season, is mostly grasslands. Annual grasses, small bushes, that sort of thing. There are some scrub oak and juniper further up the canyon, but these also are really bushy, barely up to the height of a man, and regrow pretty quickly. The idiocy here is not an idiocy of controlled burns. It is an idiocy of building on a hill that burns off every few years as grass lands in the west are prone to do. Without the target shooters in a dry year like this one it's almost certainly lightning would have done the trick later in the year; this hill has burnt off every few years for the last several decades I've been here. That being said, it seems really hard to justify target shooting at a random spot in the hills in these kinds of conditions.

Re:Bunk.

[flyingsquid]

It was not an assault rifle. Stop listening to a bunch of policemen (in this case), reporters and politicians who do not know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault weapon. The weapon in this case was the former. Just because it has a plastic and aluminum stock doesn't mean its an assault rifle or that its only purpose is killing people, en masse or otherwise.

The weapon he was carrying was reported to be a PS90 http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF009 [fnhusa.com], which is the civilian model of the FN P90. The FN P90 is bullpup-style automatic weapon described by Wikipedia as "designed as a compact but powerful firearm for vehicle crews, operators of crew-served weapons, support personnel, special forces and counter-terrorist groups." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90 [wikipedia.org] The PS90 is semiautomatic instead of fully automatic, although that's hardly the kind of thing some Utahn mom dragging her kids to the mall can be expected to appreciate, two weeks after Gabrielle Giffords and a whole crowd of people were gunned down in public (to put a little perspective on things). It's still a very dangerous weapon- it's semiautomatic, described by the manufacturer as capable of taking a 10- or 30-round clip, and fires a high-velocity round. The PS90 also has a higher muzzle velocity than the military version because it has a longer barrel. So perhaps it's not technically an "assault rife", but whatever you want to call it, the bottom line is that if you wanted to take out a crowd of unarmed civilians, this would probably be a pretty good weapon to use.

As far as purpose, automatic weapons were designed for one purpose: antipersonnel. From the Gatling gun, to the Maxim, to the submachine gun, to the German Sturmgewehr 44, the first modern assault rifle, and then to compact bullpup automatics like the FN P90, the evolution of these weapons has been driven by one thing and one thing only. And that's killing other human beings.

Re:General observation

[BlueStrat]

Yes, the U.S. under Teddy Roosevelt [wikipedia.org] sure looked feudal. Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the words you use actually mean?

Yes it did, and yes I do.

The Progressives in the 1880s were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.

Even the name "Progressive" reveals their beliefs, as they call themselves "Progressive" because they believe in progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders and the limitations on government power enshrined in the Constitution.

Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface" - i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.

Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, "To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!" This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to start turning the Constitution into "just a Goddamned piece of paper".

Under capitalism, the state creates and enforces "property rights" for the aristocrats, using the threat of death/imprisonment to keep the serfs in line.

Pure twaddle.

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist." - John Adams

"Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?" - Samuel Adams

"The rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for which the protection of Government was instituted." - James Madison

Point of fact, the Greek economic crisis was largely a creation of banks; trying to fault progressivism is a serious disconnect from reality.

More pure fantasy.

The Greek economic crisis is the direct result of unsustainable Progressive entitlement/benefit/pension spending and unrealistic Progressive economic, financial, and social policies.

As to your slam against capitalism, capitalism sucks. It's horrible. But it's STILL the best system yet invented to empower the common man.

> Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, invention, or service that has value to someone else.

> Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and raised more people to higher standards of living than any other system ever created.

> Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more freedom than any other system ever invented.

> Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.

For these reasons and many, many more, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, and the so-called "New World Order" are doomed to failure and to taking their rightful places on the garbage heap of history with the other failed ideologies and social systems which are based upon hate, greed, fear, and lust for power.

Strat