Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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 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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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... 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.
In exactly what way is carrying an unloaded weapon "irresponsible?"
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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, 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 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.