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.""

Comments

Re:Bunk.

[jensend]

Are you kidding? Just because the Utah State Legislature says that carrying an assault rifle around a mall doesn't count as threatening doesn't mean it's not threatening. There's no reason to carry a gun designed only for killing people en masse in such a place except to intimidate people, and just because it's not being pointed at anyone doesn't help anything.

The people who went for cover and called police were doing the only rational thing to do.

Re:Bunk.

[BlueStrat]

Are you kidding? Just because the Utah State Legislature says that carrying an assault rifle around a mall doesn't count as threatening doesn't mean it's not threatening.

This is a matter of personal individual perceptions, largely based on political viewpoint. Just because you are irrationally afraid, because of your politics, of an inanimate tool doesn't mean everyone is or should be. It does not justify a ban on anything "scary" to a minority subset of the population because of political viewpoint.

As a matter of fact, Liberal/Progressives scare the shit out of me, far more than law abiding citizens carrying firearms. The ideology behind Liberalism/Progressivism (Marxist/Maoist socialist/communist/fascist style totalitarianism) has killed 100's of millions.

Additionally, there isn't even a survival/protection/Constitutional justification as there are for firearms in the case of Liberalism/Progressivism. Let's pass a law to ban Liberal/Progressives and their teachings!

Strat