Fires Sparked By Utah Target Shooters Prompt Evacuations 709
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:Government (Score:4, Interesting)
Government just blames us gun owners to take away our rifles. The 2nd amendment will prevail over common sense! America! Fuck Yeah!
Officer: What I want to know is did you camp-fire get out of control or were you shooting guns? If it was your camp-fire you could be in serious trouble.
bulldozer (Score:2, Interesting)
Not seeing the "tech news" angle of this story. Two decades ago in the .mil I was a M-60 gunner (yes the reserves always has ancient gear, and 60s were obsolete since the 80s but we still had them) and I personally started a few grass fires with tracers. The .mil solution was to keep the military engineers busy by bulldozing firebreaks between adjacent ranges, heck sometimes between adjacent lanes. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out this is why some lanes were small arms only with no explosive rounds allowed. The mortar guys and other explosive rounds handled it by having firing lanes that resembled gravel pits or the surface of the moon. Don't know if they used defoliants (which are vaguely tech news, I guess) or it was a natural wasteland. I specifically recall firing a AT-4 trainer round (yes, I am old) into a gravel pit where even on the firing line you could look 360 degrees and never see any green plants. Now that I think about it, the M203 line looked about the same except we had that (supposedly toxic) orange training powder everywhere from the training loads. M203 training rounds are basically big paint balls but for some reason their paint is toxic and paintballs are non-toxic. Or maybe paintballs are toxic. Or maybe only pre-90s M203 training rounds were toxic.
People who insist on living in what amounts to a tinderbox are responsible when their tinderbox catches fire burning their house down. If you don't want to burn out, build firebreaks, build stuff that doesn't burn (clay tile roofs, brick walls, etc) and don't landscape with flammable stuff. At least two people have to do something really stupid to burn down a house, the guy who started the fire and the guy who built in a tinderbox. "I know its the opening day of deer gun hunting season but I should have the right to walk thru the wilderness wearing my furry deer costume without evil hunters shooting at me, we should ban all guns so only criminals are armed". Dumbassery all around.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Interesting)
So destroying thousands of acres of public and private land, costing the state millions of dollars in firefighting costs, risking the lives of firefighters, and causing >9000 people to evacuate their homes and businesses doesn't really matter as long as nobody got killed and no homes were destroyed?
Even if the target shooters had the money to pay the firefighting costs (extremely unlikely), the burned lands, the threat to others' lives and property, and the loss of >9000 people's time would be worth a criminal conviction.
There have been around a dozen fires started by target shooters in Utah this year, and some were larger than this; this one gets the news because it was closer to homes.
Years ago the legislature seized power to keep counties and municipalities from enforcing anything related to shooting, and they've repealed any and all restrictions on gun use they could find. They too are responsible for the fires.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have any idea who you think you're replying to. I'm not claiming gun ownership should be outlawed, and I don't see anybody who's making that claim.
You admit "Utah needs to change their local laws concerning the time and place it is appropriate to shoot" and that's precisely what I'm saying.
Your claim that these people did nothing illegal runs afoul of the reckless burning ordinance [utah.gov]; this was a class A misdemeanor. But that's not enough to dissuade people from destroying land and endangering others' lives, because people are too stubborn to believe their irresponsible actions really cause any risk of fire, even when 19 fires had already been started by shooters in Utah this year.
Target shooting on public land during a red flag warning should be illegal, and it's farcical that the Legislature has not only refused to put in place reasonable regulations but has barred counties and municipalities from doing so.
Common Sense (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that's "collective punishment"; not "common sense."
Why are the two mutually exclusive? As an outsider the problem I see with the US at the moment is that you have a society where nobody takes any responsibility for their actions (something which has also infected a lot of other countries) and you have guns freely available. This is not a good combination. Common sense tells you that either you need to alter your society so that people take responsibility for their actions i.e. learn gun safety before purchase, keep them locked away from kids, don't do target shooting in a dry forest etc. or that you need to take away the guns so people don't hurt themselves and others.
I'd much prefer a "responsible society" solution to the problem because it fixes a lot of other issues too and we know it works because that is how everyone's gun control used to work. However until we figure out a way to achieve that again people are dying due to the irresponsible use of guns and it is not just the people behaving irresponsibly who get killed. So until the we can figure out a way to gain a measure of self control as a society I would argue that gun control is common sense...but it is also a collective punishment.
Re:General observation (Score:4, Interesting)
But failure to put out a campfire, or a careless burning barrell, or throwing a lit cigarette on the ground CAN all be punished. And they ARE punished VERY severely in these states with wildfire problems.
A civil suit would be the way to go. Take names at the incident and hand them over to the 9000 people that had to be evacuated. It was a group that caused the fire without safety measures in place.
You just need a court that will allow the case.
Bunk. (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in Utah. The only parts of the state where anywhere close to even a quarter of households have firearms are low-population areas far away from the Wasatch Front (and far from this fire, the smoke from which was easily visible from where I live). Also, having a firearm in the house certainly doesn't imply that you're a target shooter.
Gang activity and burglary may be lower in Kanab or whatever than in LA but that has little to do with gun ownership.
I don't have any problem with people owning guns. I do have a problem with people leaving spent ammunition and casings all over everywhere, behaving irresponsibly by target shooting outside of gun ranges during a red flag fire warning, and brandishing assault rifles in public [deseretnews.com]. I have an even bigger problem with legislators who are more concerned with protecting irresponsible behavior by gun owners [deseretnews.com] than they are with protecting the public.
Re:General observation (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, a primary difference is, one deliberately starts a campfire.
One also deliberately fires a gun.
There, as with firearms, there was no intent to start a fire in the first place.
There was no intent with the campfire to start a wildfire. In both cases, a deliberate and irresponsible act (that is safe in normal wetter conditions) starts an unintended wildfire.
A better comparison would be to wildfires caused by vehicles (hot exhaust parked over dry grass, no spark arrestor, etc.)?
This is a fair comparison only if the driver of the vehicle was intentionally driving around without a spark arrestor or other deliberate *and* irresponsible act. As an example, a police officer who starts a wildfire while shooting his weapon in the course of his duties would be the fairer comparison to your accidental car exhaust fire (although if the grass was that susceptible, I would expect public wilderness areas to be closed to vehicular traffic).
Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. They make up a heck of a lot less than 10% of the population, especially here along the Wasatch Front.
The people who camp and cause fires that way also make up a fairly small portion of the population. Larger than shooters, but not much larger.
Right. All the fires when people were shooting in red-flag warning "tinderbox" conditions were caused by fire fairies or gnomes.
I don't respond to sarcasm. If you'd like to make an argument make it like a grownup.
[citation needed]. I've seen the sections of state code which say "Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms" and I've seen the legislature's tendency to try to trump/seize control from cities (esp. SLC) on all kinds of issues; I haven't seen the provision you cite.
UCA 10-8-47 [utah.gov]: "the municipal legislative body may regulate and prevent the discharge of firearms".
Note that they may not regulate possession or carry, only discharge.
If you could teach our state legislators this fact it would be a great accomplishment. They've passed scores of bills that their own legal counsel has said are unconstitutional attempts to trump federal law, and many of them are nullificationists.
I didn't say they couldn't try, only that they couldn't do it.
Re:Only in America... (Score:2, Interesting)
So destroying thousands of acres of public and private land, costing the state millions of dollars in firefighting costs, risking the lives of firefighters, and causing >9000 people to evacuate their homes and businesses doesn't really matter as long as nobody got killed and no homes were destroyed?
Even if the target shooters had the money to pay the firefighting costs (extremely unlikely), the burned lands, the threat to others' lives and property, and the loss of >9000 people's time would be worth a criminal conviction.
There have been around a dozen fires started by target shooters in Utah this year, and some were larger than this; this one gets the news because it was closer to homes.
Years ago the legislature seized power to keep counties and municipalities from enforcing anything related to shooting, and they've repealed any and all restrictions on gun use they could find. They too are responsible for the fires.
Then what are you going to do about cigarette butts, campfires, BBQs, trash burning, etc?
What the hell do guns have to do with being responsible for fire prevention? Should we ban outdoor grills?
Re:General observation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:General observation (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Point of fact, the Greek economic crisis was largely a creation of banks [nytimes.com]; trying to fault progressivism is a serious disconnect from reality.
When conservatives run things, on the other hand, capitalism insures plenty of state-enforced feudalism. Under capitalism, the state creates and enforces "property rights" for the aristocrats, using the threat of death/imprisonment to keep the serfs in line. Property is force; if you don't believe that, go try to build yourself a cabin in the backyards of some 1%er's third or fourth house.
Re:General observation (Score:2, Interesting)
Two very significant differences - and I can't believe that I have to point them out - speech has no direct ability to kill and destroy, while guns do, and speech DOES get regulated. Try telling a guard at the White House that you are there to kill the president, and your little bit of speech will have some very direct repercussions.
Simply put, it's not about guns. It's about fire safety and a loophole that allows gun owners to skate past the same penalties campfire builders and cigarette tossers contend with. Nothing more.
Absolutely. Completely agree. The next question though is: why does this loophole exist? And it exists because enough people in the Utah legislature are using your exact 2nd amendment reasoning to justify the existence of this loophole.
"Not everyone is coming after your right to speak freely." Would you feel the same way if this was about free speech?
Well, next time someone starts a fire by speaking some magic words, we can definitely have this conversation. In the meantime, nice attempt to deflect the conversation towards a completely unrelated and impossible situation.
Lastly, if there ever is a 2nd amendment situation that the NRA hasn't already taken up, feel free to call up the ACLU.
Re:Bunk. (Score:2, Interesting)
In my opinion ( and others), the 2nd amendment is wildly and widely misunderstood.
I'm including in parentheses the part that gets dropped by most supporters when they point to its constitutionality
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That 1st part is as important as the much-touted 2nd part.
A bunch of Rambo wannabes packing heat and shouting about their rights does NOT constitute a well-regulated militia.
I agree that an armed citizenry has a somewhat better chance of toppling a government but it's been done without guns before.
But even if the government were to turn tyrannical, open-carrying doesn't pass the smell-test.
Let's say Obama woke up tomorrow fully possessed by Hitler, Stalin and Attila, how will your pistol or shotgun help in the short term?
They have helicopters, tanks, control of the ulitities, etc. Hacker skills would go a lot further fighting against the gov't than trying to pit your Magnum against a 50-cal.
Remember the attack helicopter footage from Iraq, where they shot up a bunch of civilians who they thought were armed?
Those guys were a MILE away at several hundred feet (or more) difference in elevation and just ONE chopper took them all out in seconds.
To go up against Obama's communist regime, you'll need a lot more than what the law currently permits.
Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify GUNS or even FIREarms. The gov't could restrict you to only clubs, crossbows and slingshots - or muskets without "infringing your rights"
Re:General observation (Score:2, Interesting)
They didn't try that idea in the US. It became a totalitarian hellhole, before it collapsed.
Now you don't have healthcare, you don't have trade unions, you have "at will" employment and private industry runs nearly all your mission-critical infrastructure.
Got sick? Couldn't come into work? Sorry, you're fired. Can't have lazy bums getting sick all the time.
Got sick? No insurance? No credit card? No medicine for you!
If Stephen Hawking had been an American, he'd have been left to die of his illness. What would be the point in patching up a student with a poor prognosis and no real chance of having a well-paid career? Where's the profit?
Re:General observation (Score:2, Interesting)
No strat it just proves once again you are an moron.
Ahhhhahahahaha! "an moron" huh?
Yeah, OK there, "Einstein".
How does that foot taste, anyways?
Typical Liberal/Progressive behavior. Ad hominem in place of cogent argument...
Except you can't even get your ad-hom right when attempting to insult someone's intelligence!
Man, I sure was right in my other post...you guys just get funnier and funnier the longer you keep your pie-holes open!
Strat