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.""
General observation (Score:5, Funny)
"A lot of the problem we have out here is a lack of common sense."
As the saying goes: The problem with common sense is that it isn't very common.
Bert
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's the one with an agenda? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're counting a whole lot of zero-acre fires. If you look at the damage caused, target shooting accounts for a good deal more than 10%. Also, target shooters make up a rather small proportion of the population and cause a vastly disproportionate number of fires.
Any target shooting outside of a gun range during a red flag warning shows a lack of common sense, and trying to excuse these people's rampant irresponsibility by saying other people sometimes act irresponsibly too shows you're the one with the political agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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:Bunk. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bunk. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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,
It sounds like your objection is the perception of danger, and / or the possibility of it. Heres the thing: When you live in a free society, there are dangers. One of the dangers of the second amendment is that someone can shoot you with a legally owned, legally purchased weapon.
But that doesnt mean we throw out all of the things that make our society free and so much less burdensome than several other countries I could mention. It means that you accept that nothing is guarenteed in life, and when you t
Re:Bunk. (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as purpose, automatic weapons were designed for one purpose: antipersonnel.
Ever since semi-automatic weapons have been approximately as accurate as single-shot weapons they have been the preferred family of firearm for hunters and target shooters alike because they're easier to use. The M1 Garand was the assault rifle of its day, but before that, the musket was that, and before that the blunderbuss and before that the short bow and before that you'd carry a few spears and so on down the line until you get back to where we just picked up rocks and threw them at one another.
So while you're right that this weapon is descended from a weapon designed to kill a whole bunch of people at once, that doesn't make it an assault weapon... in the eyes of the law. I understand that you don't think that's relevant, but it is. The truth is that an assault rifle makes a dandy hunting rifle, and the same things that make an assault rifle better for killing people make it better for killing dinner. The only thing you're never going to need is fully automatic fire, which is why it's not present in the civilian models. Otherwise, a bullpup-configuration carbine with a synthetic stock is desirable to the hunter for the same reasons it's desirable to the soldier; it's lighter, there's less climb so if you're firing consecutive shots you're going to be more accurate, and the weapon is physically smaller which means it's less likely to catch on something while moving through brush or traversing obstacles. (You're supposed to put your rifle down when doing that sort of thing... but sometimes that's just not practical.)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure a lot of
Gun owners find it a useful attribute too. Things that work well are something to strive for.
Re:Bunk. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bunk. (Score:5, Insightful)
You haven't heard of the 1st amendment?
Hint: It precedes the 2nd amendment you're so zealous about.
OK, fine. Then let's agree that you leave the 2nd Amendment alone, and we'll leave the 1st Amendment alone.
See, that's exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. You don't mind at all trying to take away people's rights under the 2nd Amendment, but you scream bloody murder when it's a right YOU care about.
Once you go down the road of removing/crippling/restricting rights, don't act all surprised when they get to a right YOU care about.
They came for the gun owners, but I wasn't a gun owner, so I did not speak out. Then they came for my freedom of speech, but there was no way for me or anyone else to defend my free speech.
Just an FYI: Why do you think the founders put those two things as first and second in the list of rights? According to them, it's because without the 2nd Amendment, you can't defend the 1st Amendment, and will quickly lose it.
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, it's a private property matter. The Mall can say "no guns" and post that and then the firearm owner is doing something wrong on the mall's property. If there is no mall policy, and there is an open-carry law in the state in question, nothing is wrong with the assault rifle. Sure, it's gaudy. It's like someone in a mohawk and 30000 piercings. Tasteless? Yes... could either be part of something more sinister? Yes... but until there's more proof than the gun (or the mohawk) itself, you're just project
Re:Bunk. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Most of these fires, like the one by Saratoga Springs which caused the evacuations, are happening in areas where there is little tinder, and regular controlled fires make little or no difference where the prevailing vegetation is grasses and sagebrush. Grasses and sagebrush don't build up that much over the years.
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.
Re:General observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
I can empathize, and I think that the target shooters were not thinking. But what I can't stand is the summary's blatant attempt to turn this into a gun debate, as if the "zealous protection of gun owners' rights" is somehow wrong and anti-American. It's the 2nd fucking Amendment (I'm not ranting at you, I just had to get this off my chest.) The Supreme Court has correctly interpreted "the People" in the clause of the 2nd Amendment to be individuals. (Just like "the People" in the 1st Amendment)... Utah is not doing anything overtly criminal in making sure all rights, even those that people hate (like free speech and the right to bear arms) are protected. This is purely a matter of fire safety. It has 0 to do with guns. It could've been a cigarette. It is not the gun's or 2nd Amendment's fault.
I think they should be charged and fined as a person(s) who violated a Red Flag warning and built a fire. Nothing about the guns should matter. But I can see /. (in general) loves individual freedom only sometimes. :)
"Guns are bad, mmmmkay?" -- random /. consensus. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, neither building in the grassland nor building in the forest is idiotic, with or without sensible land management process. It becomes idiotic when you build the house out of near-as-makes-no-difference 100% flammable materials, and/or leave trees standing that are capable of falling on your dwelling.
Falling or topping trees that threaten dwellings and using nonflammable construction materials such as earth bags or shipping containers (with metal shutters) can reduce or even effectively eliminate t
Re:General observation (Score:5, Informative)
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: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).
not really about guns (Score:3)
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid guns dont kill people, stupid people kill people.
Re: (Score:3)
where's the article about careless campers?
Ah, a lovely example of confirmation bias, where you only ever remember the data that supports your point. Here's what I get back when I google for "campfire creates wildfire": just on the first page, there is one recent article about how damaging wildfires are that are created when you camp, along with tips how to prevent them, three government websites dedicated to talking about wildfires and the role that campfires that in creating them, and.... well, a bunch of girlscout articles about Camp Fire.
Serious
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? You really want an article on Slashdot about how campfires that get out of control get prosecuted? I.e., a story about a law that everyone agrees with gets applied? Do you also want stories about how the mugging at your local Denny's was investigated, and the perp prosecuted? Or maybe you want a story about how a campfire causes a wildfire? What the hell is your point? And even if that story would exist, what the hell does it have to do with the fact that prosecution is a-ok for a wildfire started through any means, except when it is started through guns? I mean, outside of aiming for Gold in mental gymnastics.
Seriously, take off your blinders here. Not everyone is coming for your guns, and not every use of a gun needs to be sanctioned. If you're so insecure that you can't see that.... yeah, you're really not helping your cause here.
Re: (Score:3)
You're cherrypicking.
Try posting the entire sentence, not just part of it, e.g.:
"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"
Re:General observation (Score:4, Insightful)
The right to bear arms is not a right to fire them indiscriminately. Making it illegal to discharge firearms in circumstances where doing so is not in the public interest is very much allowed. For instance, you're not allowed to discharge firearms in the city limits of the town I live in, despite strong support for the right to carry them.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, way to prove their point. If you don't see why your extreme stance is no better than the other extreme stance, you really have no hope in influencing people on this issue. Even if you think your extreme stance is reasonable, you should pretend to be reasonable so that people will take you seriously.
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't just (or necessarily) a lack of common sense, it can also be cost. Shooting ranges aren't cheap, especially the indoor ones, and they can also be crowded, with a waiting period. People wanting to go shooting cheaply usually try to find free outdoor places like this for this very reason. There might also not be very many of them available nearby, especially in rural areas.
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't quite get why the law can't handle this without running afoul of the second amendment, either. In Canada, I regularly see "fire bans" - when the conditions are poor (i.e., dry tinder), even fires that require and have received permits are not allowed. Open-pit fires are banned. (BBQs, being enclosed, are still permitted.) A similar fire ban, not targetting firearms per se, should pass muster just fine, as long as it allows for emergency use (self-defense), active militia use (again, largely defense), and firing ranges and such.
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing a lot of the details and only hearing one side. The law allows for the recovery of damages and the imposition of penalties for starting fires. In this case the people responsible for starting the fire accidentally were also the ones who immediately reported it. Apparently the local authorities decided that they had not been acting irresponsibly, otherwise they would have been charged with some offense and would possibly be responsible for the entire cost of fighting the fire. (Yes, that does happen from time to time.)
Also, there are all sorts of fire bans in effect in different areas. If the people weren't charged with anything then they probably weren't violating any ban.
The main problem with this report and some of the comments is that someone is attempting to use it as an argument against guns and completely exaggerating the rules which are in effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently Utah has passed a law that prohibits anyone making laws that restrict firearms. So no charges can be brought against anyone who starts a fire while shooting on public lands. At a guess you'be absolved from blame for shooting those pesky liberals, like Orin Hatch.
This is called "preemption", and quite a few states have laws like that.
If they didn't have them, local fiefdoms of arbitrary and capricious laws designed to bilk fine money out of outsiders would rule the day.
Local governments abused the power they had, and it had to be taken away. Nothing to see here, they deserved it, and created the situation themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately, the lack of common sense is a self correcting problem... In this instance, the morons are attempting to immolate themselves. Darwin strikes again!
Would that it were... Alas, in this case the targets of their inadvertent attempts at immolation are mostly other persons, rather than themselves. It's a sort-of reverse Darwin (kill the less stupid ones, let the more stupid ones survive), which could contribute to an Idiocracy-style future.
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 targ
Re:General observation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
But then children won't learn to grow up with an irrational fear of guns.
Yeah, can't have that! That would interfere with the Progressive indoctrination of the children to be helpless and dependent serfs!
They might even grow up not needing a gargantuan all-powerful government!
They might even start [gasp!!] thinking for themselves!!!
The horror!!!
I see that my OP is now down to "-1 Troll". That just confirms to me that I'm dead on-target. Oops, I hope that phrase didn't scare the mods! :)
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Re:General observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when does sensible regulation = totalitarianism? I'm not saying firearms should be regulated, but private companies? Fuck yes they should be regulated.
Sensible regulation doesn't equal totalitarianism anymore than small government = fuedalism. However, we do know from both history and human nature that power corrupts and tends to draw more power to itself and that experiments in having big government tend to end badly.
A sensible position is to always remember that government=force, remember that individual liberty had intrinsic value, and whenever someone suggests using the government to solve a problem question whether or not non-government people and government can solve it and whether a government solution is worse than the problem. Too often our first question is "how can government solve this?" rather than "why can't this be solved by people exercising their liberty?"
Re: (Score:3)
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:4, Informative)
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
Re:General observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Its so strange watching what people latch onto. Like the story about the blind men trying to describe an elephant, one has it by the tail and thinks its an elephant is a stick, another by the leg and thinks its like a tree, and another by the trunk and thinks it like a snake. All right, and all completely wrong. First there are no pure "ISM" governments left on the planet save maybe North Korea, and they're just bugfsck. Capitalism is PRONE to serious problems, especially when corporations hijack the government. Even Adam Smith warned about the dangers of concentrating wealth and the absolute essential need for a healthy middle class. Capitalism with strong regulations in place to ensure they don't abuse labor, or too strongly influence cultural thinking through pervasive media, or destroy the environment they need in which to operate, is a wonderful thing. But like any reactor you watch it, guide it, steer it, and most certainly keep it in that dynamic tension between strict control and free progress.
There are strong arguments for limiting banks before you limit governments, because banks arguable have had a greater impact on human suffering than the all the governments of the world combined. Which isn't to say that governments are blameless, or shouldn't be strictly controlled. That's why we used to have checks and balances (until corporate America began dismantling them 30 years ago.) Twenty-first century America is living proof why Plutocracies and Fascist states are inherently doomed enterprises. Pyramids balanced on their points, they're unstable and dangerous. They do double harm, first as they bleed a culture dry, then as they begin to topple struggling ever harder against the very culture in which they exist causing collateral damage as they strive to keep wealth and power. There are fascinating conversations regarding the amazing wealth of the United States shortly after winning its independence and the disastrous effects of tying American currency to British Banks and the formation of our own Federal Bank.
As for your attack on Liberalism, I attribute none of the "ISMs" of which you speak to liberalism. Conservatism is the tendency to avoid in fact prevent change. Conservatism looks at the world framed in past based conversations and tries to preserve a consistent and workable status quo through tradition ideals and methods. This worked well when the period of significant social and technological change was greater than a single human life span. Its a full on disaster today. Liberalism is embracing change, looking for new solutions to new problems, looking to hit the moving target of social advance as it continues to accelerate. There will be failures, that's part of the scientific method. The whole point is that our world is changing at an every increasing rate, and that conservative thinking is inherently more broken, less tied to physical reality, and more prone to growing distortions of perception based on forcing reality into those inappropriate past frames of reference. Look at the last President and his cabinet trying to force a 2000 world into a 1980 frame of reference and the social disasters that ensued. This isn't to say that some expressions of Liberalism aren't flavored with excessive moralizing, emotional attachment or equally fixed past perspectives. It is to say that at its best, liberal thinking is profoundly better at dealing with and confronting accelerating change than conservatism.
Just as an aside, though conservatives like to claim fiscal austerity as one of their key planks, dealing with financial resources consistent with the simple tenets of basic accounting, seems to me to be just a simple act of sanity. Those that suggest we consistently spend more than we make, conservative or liberal are simply poor stewards of the future. Bill Clinton proved we could provide a fair tax structure, build the nation's infrastructure, promote a successful economy and still pay off the national debt. Anybody remember the "Surplus".
Re:General observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Too many rights over your own property leaves a mess that persists beyond your lifetime which is harmful to society
Except that the US and the Constitution aren't meant, and were never meant, to protect society, they were and are meant to protect individual freedom.
Once you put collective interests above individual freedom, you have tyranny. History shows this has always been true, and unless humans suddenly change into something other than human, it will always be so.
Strat
Only in America... (Score:4, Insightful)
does the right to pointlessly shoot random shit trump a home-owners right not to have his house burned to a cinder
christ....
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Informative)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly why nothing changes. Gun nuts won't accept any responsibility for any bad thing associated with gun ownership. Guns purchased in the U.S. used by Mexican drug cartels, fueling gang violence, or ending up in the hands of the mentally desperate who take out other people with them, it's never because there are just too many guns on the street or that they're too easy to purchase.
If they accepted responsibility for anything it would open the door to some kind of intelligent gun regulation, but we can't have that. So the fault is always somewhere else.
Just like this guy. Guns caused a massive wildfire that prompted the evacuation of thousands of people, but it's all okay. We can't possibly consider restricting outdoor shooting during periods when conditions are bad, that would be limiting their 2nd amendment rights. Even though we restrict campfires, outdoor burning and other activities.
They made an effort to put it out, so the thousands of families living in shelters and firefighters risking their lives, that's all okay. It wasn't the poor gun owner's fault.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why nothing changes. Gun nuts won't accept any responsibility for any bad thing
Gun nuts, no. Gun owners, yes. There is a difference. A gun owner stores his firearms properly (ammunition separate from the firearm), uses judgment as to where and when he fires his weapon, and above all knows the dangers and risks associated with a firearm and treats it as such. A gun nut is the guy you see posing for a picture by pointing the gun into the camera and rides around shooting road signs with a .22. There is a big difference between the two.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the fact that these people exist mean you have to regulate.
I would atleast consider 'improper use of a firearm' to be a crime, and firing your weapon when it's possible it would start a wildfire would, to me, be considered improper use. If someone was shooting a gun in the middle of a a fuel leak, you bet your arse they'd be prosecuted for something regardless as to what they were shooting at. Why is shooting on a hot, dry, tinderbox any different?
Re: (Score:3)
But they also were on a county OWNED Bomb Range and took every precaution asked of them by the sheriff in charge. They also carry insurance policies to compensate the homeowner and crew should something go wrong.
So MythBusters is EXACTLY the same as a bunch of guys showing up on public land to shoot their guns.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely this is why the right to bear arms should only be part of a "well regulated militia".
Re: (Score:3)
And why aren't they treated differently? If you are careless with your gun, why are you still allowed to have one?
What bugs me to no end is people who feel entitled to something but do not want to take the responsibility for it. Yes, guns are dangerous and yes, they can not only kill but also, as we can see here, cause a lot of other troubles. Every right you want comes loaded with the responsibility to use it carefully. And the right to own and use a gun must come with the responsibility to use it in a way
Re: (Score:3)
If you are careless with your gun, why are you still allowed to have one?
I'm not really a gun rights kind of guy (never owned one, and only fired one a handful of times - and never anything too exciting either), but I can point out that there's a dangerous second amendment implication embedded in this line of thinking. Taking away gun rights for gray language terminology such as "careless" has a slippery slope associated with it. Today, careless counts as using your gun in a manner which has a chance of starting a fire. Over time what counts as careless can drift, and can be
Re:Only in America... (Score:4, Insightful)
You speak of the military like they are some kind of brainless machine that just automatically does whatever politicians want, the politician just says "kill all those civilians" and the military will just do it without question.
I've got news for you. I've lived almost my entire life in and around the military, as did my father. If such orders came down, a significant portion, if not the majority, of the military would be pointing their weapons back at the politicians and removing them from power, not killing the citizens.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is a difference. However, I'd like to pull out the Islamist argument, since the use of it overlaps with the group we're talking about: gun nuts might be different from responsible gun owners, but until we hear responsible gun owners pipe up when the gun nuts are running their mouths, the rest of the world is going to assume that they all agree.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Only in America... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and the current administration has just been cited for contempt by a House oversight committee for allegedly accelerating the number of American weapons in the drug wars in order to elicit the exact response you are having, so that the populists will support the new Brady Bill.
Before Obama was elected, the pro-gun lobby said HEY, HE'S GOING TO COME FOR YOUR GUNS! Then, guess what? He didn't. So now, you've got to make up this incredibly elaborate plot [wikipedia.org] that the administration supposedly has to get rid of guns in the US. By sending some guns to Mexico, causing violence there, maybe having them come back into the US, and getting people shot? What? He wants to get rid of guns and gun violence, so he's intentionally distributing the guns and causing causing gun violence?
That's quite the theory. "A lot of the problem we have out here is a lack of common sense," indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By sending some guns to Mexico, causing violence there, maybe having them come back into the US, and getting people shot? What? He wants to get rid of guns and gun violence, so he's intentionally distributing the guns and causing causing gun violence?
Whether or not that was the intention this time, it's a time-honored tradition, and a successful one at that.
The government did the same thing [slate.com], effectively, with alcohol during prohibition (TL;DR: randomly poisoning bootlegged alcohol with methanol so that peo
Re: (Score:3)
Of course if we didn't have people with guns, then we could start REMOVING guns from police that do nothing more than write traffic tickets. Then they would be more responsive to resolve situations peacefully and stop shooting unarmed citizens because they are afraid of a little fistfight.
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.
Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about a "right" to do anything trumping anything else. If there was no law against (target-)shooting in the area in which the shooters were, how do you suggest they be prevented from having done something that caused an accidental fire?
If your issue is with the fact they won't face punishment for something they couldn't have possibly predicted and didn't intend, how is the lack of punishment in any way related to the fact that thousands of people are now without homes?
If your issue is the fact that
Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFS:
The fire was the 20th this year in Utah sparked by target shooting
and it's only half way through the year!
That's one fire a week
Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFS: The fire was the 20th this year in Utah sparked by target shooting
As compared with the 188 human-cause wildfires in Utah so far this year which were sparked by causes other than target shooting. Not that this lets shooters off the hook, but if you're going to impose regulations to prevent wildfires you should probably start with the low-hanging fruit: campfires.
Re: (Score:3)
From TFS: The fire was the 20th this year in Utah sparked by target shooting
As compared with the 188 human-cause wildfires in Utah so far this year which were sparked by causes other than target shooting. Not that this lets shooters off the hook, but if you're going to impose regulations to prevent wildfires you should probably start with the low-hanging fruit: campfires.
Correction: I took the 218 total human-caused wildfire figure from another slashdot post. I'm not sure where he got it, but the official source [utahfireinfo.gov] reports a total of 229 human-caused fires this year, at least if you add up the agency totals yourself. The "Grand Total" on the page is inexplicably wrong.
Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:5, Insightful)
As I've said elsewhere, there aren't that many target shooters, and they start a vastly disproportionate number of fires, and these fires have caused considerably more damage than the vast majority of the fires on that silly list (many of those were zero-acre fires).
But more to the point: counties, municipalities, and the BLM, Forest Service, and NPS all have the power to restrict campfires, and they often do put restrictions in place during fire season. But the state legislature has not only failed to put reasonable shooting regulations in place but has barred anyone else from doing so.
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:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah right, there was no way to predict it. After all, it only has happened 19 times this year before this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there was no law against (target-)shooting in the area in which the shooters were, how do you suggest they be prevented from having done something that caused an accidental fire?
The problem is the "no law against" part. The government is too afraid of the NRA to suggest any laws that might offend them. As they take the same attitude when people are murdered by gun users it's entirely consistent.
Any home owners, and/or their insurance companies, affected by such fires should start a class action and sue both the state government and the NRA for creating this entirely predictable hazard. The actual idiots who started the fires should be given some frontier justice, in line with
Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:4, Insightful)
More fires are started by firefighters doing controlled burns that get out of control than target shooters.
In that case there is a risk (of starting a wildfire) /benefit (preventing fires). There is no benefit to allowing gun nuts to shoot at junk in the countryside and start fires.
Perhaps you wish to hang the firefighters?
Perhaps you are a fuckwit?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about a "right" to do anything trumping anything else. If there was no law against (target-)shooting in the area in which the shooters were, how do you suggest they be prevented from having done something that caused an accidental fire?
I don't get this. There is no law against me driving a car (since I have a valid license). But if I cause an accidental car crash, I'm responsible for the damage.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no framework because the State SPECIFICALLY dismantaled it as a "gun rights" thing. THAT is the point of the article.
Even though there is a ban in the park on campfires which includes securing lawn mowers, BBQs, and even cigarette butts... It DOESN'T apply to guns... Feel free to shoot away!
Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:5, Informative)
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:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how things work in Utah, but where I live, the state fire department declares that on certain days (based on the predicted temperature and humidity) that nobody may light fires in the open air. That includes incinerators, camp fires or what have you. Practically nobody intends for their camp fire to get out of control. Nobody of consequence wants to ban camping or the use of camp fires. Nonetheless, camp fires are regulated on days where there is a serious risk of them getting out of control.
It seems, to me, completely irrational not to impose the same restriction on target shooting.
Re:Has nothing to do with "trumping" anything (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no law against driving. There are laws against "reckless driving".
Why can't this be applied to guns?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Your right to punish idiots "with no commonsense" trumps my right to be alerted in time because those idiots "with no commonsense" will probably just run away and hide their rifles before alerting anyone (let alone the authorities) of anything that might get them thrown them in jail for the rest of their lives.
And yes, only in Utah, USA, where the population density is so high, it's like Tokyo and Luxembourg merged into one, only smaller, where everybody knows what their neighbors are doing all of the
Civil liability (Score:3)
Since when... (Score:3)
... does the right to shoot guns include the right to shoot guns anywhere you damn well please?
Seems to me there's a parallel with the right to free speech not including the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.
Every group has its careless idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
And recreational shooters are no different. In tinderbox conditions like this you can shoot safely, but you have to be careful. Don't shoot steel jacketed or steel cored ammunition, stick to plain lead or copper jacketed only. Don't shoot tracers, don't use gimmick ammo like Dragon's Breath shotgun shells. Above all, pay attention and be prepared to put out a fire. If you're not prepared to do all of that, then maybe you should just do something else until the weather changes.
I'm an avid shooter and probably own more guns than most of the people reading this. My knee jerk reaction is to defend "my" side, but I also want to smack down the morons making the rest of us look bad.
Off-topic (Score:5, Insightful)
Article is completely off-topic
Dozens of fires (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Fire is a normal event in nature. What has made things far worse in Colorado is the government managing the beetle killed trees.
Imagine a mountainside filled with 50% completely dead, stripped trees standing there baking in the sun.
No efforts to remove them, just a big pile of firewood waiting to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
railroad trains
60 years ago they got rid of the coal burning steamies. The diesels technically could start a fire, but its probably less than 0.01% as often. I don't know how long ago they switched from babbit bushings to roller bearings, but hot boxes where a wheel bearing overheats and catches fire are darn near a thing of the past. Technically it happens once in awhile, but not often, and its almost always caught with telemetry before it bursts into flame. Besides roller bearings don't have manilla rope packing lik
LIablity (Score:3)
If you accidentally start a fire, you are liable. Why are these people who accidentally start fires with fire arms not just as liable as someone who crashes a car into your house?
I think they are being provided extra protection since they were using firearms. If you are start a fire intentionally or not, you should be investigated and held responsible for the resulting costs and damages.
If there is a pattern of gunfire causing fires (20 appears to be a precedent), then tax firearms and ammunition the amount needed to cover all costs. The tax payers and property owners should not have to cover these costs.
If anything gun ownership should require extra responsibility, but the NRA has pushed gun freedom so far that governments believe freedom is the absence of responsibility.
Whether used for personal defense or recreation, any damage done with a firearm (killing, destroying property) must at least suffer the same consequences as doing the same damage without a firearm. I personally believe punishment should be harsher for damage resulting from firearms because they are inherently destructive instruments which should necessitate high levels of training and responsibility to insure the least amount of damage results from their use.
But again, in the US, "a well regulated militia", is interpreted as freedom from gun licences, monitoring, education and responsibility.
Wrong Rights (Score:3)
The right to carry firearms does not grant the right to use them irresponsibly. These idiots should be held accountable not for firing their weapons but for negligence, the same as if they started the fires with careless campfires.
No way. (Score:3)
There is absolutely no way some guy firing rounds into any kind of grass caused a fire. I want proof. I've fired of a ridiculous amount of ammunition, of all types, into all kinds of things since I was a little kid. The only time I've ever seen a fire cause by any kind of round is incendiary rounds or a metric crapton of tracers pounded into a target in short order by a minigun.
Prove it.
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.
Re:Easy Fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrible idea, superficially a good one, but it would result in massive losses and deaths.
You see, legal shooting happens mostly in the wilderness. If you start handing out the economic death penalty to people who accidentally start a fire, then they would have to be economically suicidal to ever report a fire.
Imagine a tiny little grass fire starts while target shooting or poaching or whatever. You can "do the right thing" and call it in and 99% of the time the local fire department waters it down and its all good, and 1% of the time its not completely controlled but at least the FD is on it and it may wipe out a house or two, but at least the FD knows about it so evac is successful and no one dies.
With your ridiculous requirement, the shooters would be insane to economically kill themselves, so once a tiny little fire starts, rather than stomping it out themselves and calling the local fire department to water down the area, they run like hell. Obviously they'll get away every time. However 100% of tiny little grass fires will uncontrollably spread and sweep thru town killing everyone and destroying everything.
It seems a heck of a lot less people will die and a lot less destruction will occur if there is no liability to calling in a grass fire. Your plan would fail miserably.
Re:Easy Fix (Score:4, Insightful)
The shooter that you refer to under fear of the enormous financial repercussions of accidentally starting a fire will fail to report the fire and run away. This makes the firefighters' jobs more difficult because the fire does not get reported as quickly. The most important thing in an emergency situation like this is the speed of response on the part of the firefighter. Who caused it and what happened is secondary or even tertiary.
The same thing holds for policing in a community. If an undocumented immigrant observes or is a victim of a crime, they are less likely to report that crime to the police in parts of the US where the police will check your immigration status just for calling them. Those locations are less safe than locations where the police leave the checking of immigration status to after charging an individual with a crime. In communities where the police pretend to be an immigrations service, the conservatives and the tea baggers might feel like they're being protected from the boogeyman of the criminal immigrant, where in reality they are much less safe because the law abiding immigrants fear even calling the police to report a real crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, if you have a law saying they're responsible for accidental fires, do you think they're going to call 911 for a quick response, or just get the hell out of there, leaving the fire to build until someone else notices it?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you make sense. In my other post I said we should hold the shooters accountable, but I failed to consider the 'unintended consequences" of that, which was dumb as I usually try to.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this. Lead doesn't spark against hard surfaces, no matter how hard it's hitting them (okay, within reason; sufficient velocity trumps all). Either way, aren't these guys like wide open for a massive civil suit?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if UT doesn't ban steel core ammo, but CA doesn't and lots of states don't and it's cheap as shit. I have a crapload of it because you get it cheap from the civilian marksmanship program... military surplus .30-06. They will sell you an M1 Garand to fire it from for a very reasonable price, and the ammo often comes in bandoliers of enbloc clips inside of an ammo box at fifty cents a round or so (that's pretty expensive compared to 9mm or .22, but it will kill anything you hit properly and those