Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumToo many wildfires caused by gun owners, says Utah governor
Source: Christian Science Monitor
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / June 23, 2012
ATLANTA
Some of the wildfires scorching the West this year were sparked by unusual culprits: Gun owners. Or, more specifically, gun shooters.
As with the Dump fire in Utah, which flared hard enough on Friday to force the evacuation of 1,500 homes and 9,000 people, nearly two dozen conflagrations, officials say, have started accidentally by careless target shooters whose bullet sparks touch off dried-up pinon and wild grasses.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
While authorities can ban certain fire-related activities when fire risks are high, thats not true with guns, the carrying and use of which are staunchly protected by state and federal law, including several recent Supreme Court decisions.
In Utah, for example, a state law prohibits the state from enacting emergency bans on guns, putting Gov. Herbert in a position of instead asking county governments to issue emergency rules for outdoor gun use as wildfire conditions prevail across the West.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0623/Too-many-wildfires-caused-by-gun-owners-says-Utah-governor
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I generally support gun rights, but wildfires are a pretty big deal, in my opinion.
villager
(26,001 posts)...denying this cause-and-effect!
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Hollywood action movies notwithstanding. Sounds like a load of BS to me.
petronius
(26,614 posts)If there was an actual direct link between shooting and fires, I think it would be completely reasonable to put dry areas off-limits to shooting until the risk was past.
I notice that they seem to be conflating different 'emergencies' - the North Carolina law, for example, was about banning guns during things like hurricanes and blizzards, where firearms are unrelated to the emergency. Not really the same kettle of fish as a situation (if it is in fact the case) where shooting activities can be directly linked to an impact. It's a bit deceptive, really, to allow that blurring in the article...
krispos42
(49,445 posts)That stuff has a tendency to not burn completely in the barrel. When you shoot it, often times still-burning embers are blasted out behind the bullet, and that can start fires if they land on tinder.
Hot brass won't (it's not THAT hot), and the flash from smokeless powder is just a flash... there's not enough heat contained in the spurt of gases to set anything on fire.
I suppose as well they could be firing tracer or incendiary ammunition, but that stuff is hard to find and kind of expensive., and it would be pretty damn stupid to be doing so.
Past that, I don't see how a gun could start a fire by itself.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)He was using some homemade cardboard wads and one of them must have landed in some dry grass.
That's the only time in 25 years living here I've seen a fire start from any kind of firearm.
The idiots on ATV's that run up and down our dry creek bed on the other hand average one or two a year. In addition to destroying the banks and causing winter floods.
Yavapai
(825 posts)It is kind of like hearing the ricochet when the projectile hits dirt or the 50th round of fire from a six cartridge revolver.
Another BS from the movies is when they show a silencer screwed onto a revolver and you can't hear the sound of a gunshot.
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)A lot of military surplus ammunition, and stuff made to military specs like 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54mmR stuff coming out of the former Soviet bloc, has a steel core for penetration, and the steel will spark. The common test at formal ranges is whether the bullet will adhere to a magnet; if it does, you can't shoot it.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)"Armor-piercing", and all that jazz that makes Feinstein and McCarthy all righteous.
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)Rifle ammunition is under no such restriction.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)You can however, start a fire with your discarded cigarette or badly managed campfire
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)If the shooter is a dumb-ass who's decided to shoot a magazine-rull of tracer rounds "cause it would be cool" then starting a fire, as my cousin did, is not only possible.
It's been over 12 years and you can still see the burn scars, about 150 acres, on the mountain face - he and his equally dumbass father - lied about the cause of the fire saying only that a "normal" jacketed .308 round skipped off a rock and struck sparks, starting the fire.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)just struck me funny... haha...meh.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I have always found it to be one of the single best news "papers" and sources along with being written above a 6th grade level.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I haven't read it in years, I admit.
Thought maybe it had changed and was bent toward a conservative POV ... just struck me as odd source for DU is all.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In the Army I have seen tracers start brush fires.
sarisataka
(18,947 posts)Every fire I have seen on a range involved tracers.
We even set a stack of tires on fire once. As hot as the brass is, it cools quickly. I think you would have to try very hard to start a fire with brass
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 4, 2012, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)
The wild west-ers don't need hunting as an excuse to go shooting, they love to fire them things off.
BTW, I am a gun owner, have been a CCW holder, etc, so I'm not anti-gun, just commenting on what I've seen to be true.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or it not being paved over like much of Florida?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I am a westerner. The reason I set it separate, west-ers in which I intended to represent those of the wild west attitude of gun slinging, which presents these days as a bunch of guys going out to the wilderness, drinking and shooting, not hunting.
I have no problem with westerners as you represent.
Turbineguy
(37,427 posts)Problem solved.
ileus
(15,396 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Sounds like someone just hates shooters enjoying their sport.
DBoon
(22,433 posts)very, very rare for hunters
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)When I was out hunting turkey last year, I tromped along various trails in various wildlife and national/state forest areas, and I came across a depressing number of spots where some morons had been plinking and left the area littered with shot-up bottles and cans, not to mention cartridge cases and hulls, especially cheap steel non-reloadable ones (e.g. Wolf and Herter).
Which isn't to say I don't enjoy going out with some friends and blasting the snot out of some targets, but we take biodegradable targets (e.g. pumpkins bought right after Halloween, or watermelons et al.) and we do our level best to police our brass (including non-brass) afterward. We bring trash bags, is what I'm saying.
Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)Tracers aside, bullets don't spark.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 08:49 PM - Edit history (2)
As long as nobody goes overboard and tries to attack ownership/carry/transport/etc., I don't see any conflict whatsoever. Provided that the state can demonstrate that discharging firearms exacerbates high fire risk, a specific prohibition on discharging firearms on park land during elevated fire risk conditions is totally consistent with the 2A. Post a "no discharging firearms" notice at each entrance along with the fire risk condition, and you're good to go.
EDIT: I understand that lead doesn't spark, brass cools quickly, and I'm not stating that hunters must have caused the fire with guns. This post merely addresses the constitutionality and authority of the state to restrict the non-emergency discharging of firearms in certain places at certain times.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)However, lead and copper don't spark on rocks. Sounds like the governor needs to do more research.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)By: Todd Harding | April 5, 2012
http://k99.com/galuchie-gulch-fire-west-of-loveland-was-started-by-a-gunshot-video/
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Really? Gasoline and lighter fluid, with a tracer round? Not exactly 'easily'...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)By The Associated Press
Published: June 23. 2012 4:00AM PST
SARATOGA SPRINGS, Utah Residents of at least 2,300 homes in northern Utah were being evacuated Friday after high winds kicked up a fire started by target shooters ...
BLM officials say they believe the blaze was caused when a bullet hit a rock and sparked the fire. This is the 20th target-shooting related fire this year in Utah, they said.
http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20120623/NEWS0107/206230367/
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)It might be possible if a copper jacketed bullet hits a rock harder than copper. I don't think lead can cause a spark.
http://survivaltopics.com/flint-and-steel-what-causes-the-sparks/
If it has anything to do with shooters, most likely smokers that don't know how to put their cancer stick out properly. It also may be tracers.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)copper FMJ. Even then, the rock would have to be at least seven on Moh's scale. Flint for example. BTW, wouldn't that trash the barrel?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's a steel slug inside a copper and lead jacket.
Dubious, but theoretically possible. Tracers slightly more likely. Far more likely is one of the shooters dropping a cigarette.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Steel-jacketed bullets
Not only the cases of Wolf rifle ammo are steel. Most of Wolf's rifle cartridges use steel jacketed bullets, though they look like copper jacketed. The copper exterior of the bullet is only about .005 inch thick, (about twice the thickness of a sheet of paper) with a steel jacket underneath about 1/32 inch thick. Only the cartridges in the yellow and black boxes have real copper jackets. The core of the steel jacketed bullets, sometimes marked "bimetal", are lead. Some rifle ranges have started magnet testing shooter's ammunition to determine if bullets are steel jacketed. The steel is said to be more likely to ricochet, and also to cause sparks on impact, which can be a problem when shooting in dry grassland, or forest areas. In addition, a large majority of pistol ranges will not allow shooters to use Wolf, or other Russian ammunition types because of the steel jacket components on many of their products. An oft-cited reason for this is because they claim it damages the backstops. A more likely reason for not allowing steel-cased
ammunition is that the ranges are unable to re-sell the berdan-primed steel cases for reloading, an important source of revenue for many ranges.[citation needed]
http://www.firearmsid.com/bullets/bullet1.htm
Oneshooter
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)A lot of Wolf ammo is listed as "bimetal" jacketed. I'm guessing that means steel with a very thin copper overlay to keep from trashing barrels.
http://www.wolfammo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=12
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Nasty habit.
Straw Man
(6,628 posts)a) exploding targets (e.g. tannerite): yes
b) incendiary ammo (e.g. tracers, "dragon's breath" : yes
c) traditional black powder gun: maybe, in close proximity to highly combustible vegetation
d) muzzle flash from short-barreled rifle/shotgun: maybe, ditto
e) rounds sparking on rocks: highly unlikely unless a highly combustible accelerant is present
I have no problem with a ban on a) and b) in wilderness areas. Furthermore, temporary bans on recreational shooting during times of high fire danger do not infringe on anyone's RKBA. But I suspect an outright firearms ban on public land is what the usual suspects are stumping for.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)http://www.dof.virginia.gov/fire/fire-causes.shtml
I wonder of the governor of Utah is a smoker?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I guess I'll have to stop that now.
Um. Yeah.
ileus
(15,396 posts)First it was SYG now it's now this....both cases built on lies they know people won't bother to learn the truth about.
SYG aren't shoot first laws.
Denying the government the ability to ban gun use in emergencies isn't about target shooting when it hasn't rained.
Kali
(55,032 posts)that one of the recent fires was started (and confessed to) by a guy using a shotgun to scare off some coyotes...is this even possible? (it IS very dry here and the burn was on an area that has been "preserved" from livestock grazing for more than a decade - translation: tons of tall, VERY DRY grass)
the rest of the 10 or so small fires around here are rumored to have mostly been lit by a local police chief's son and one or two by lightening.
Clames
(2,038 posts)There are usually around 5 conditions used to judge when certain types of ammunition, explosives, or pyrotechnics are restricted due to the potential to start a wild fire. Even at Level V there is no restriction on the use of standard ball (non tracer) small arms ammunition below the M2 .50 BMG machine gun. The standard M855 5.56 mm M16/M4 ammo has a steel penetrator. 7.62 mm M80 Ball is copper gilded but steel jacketed. I seriously doubt range controllers would risk a wild fire under the most favorable conditions if there was credible evidence such ammo could spark one.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Yet the gun culture promotes toting.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)Some people don't like grapefruits. How does that fact relate to handgun carry?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You failed the "experiment."
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)I was hoping your compulsion to bring up handgun carry extended to fruit conversations, as well
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Born green.
Lead yellow belly lives.
Depart this world rotten.
The difference is fruit flies like bananas.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)I'd like to keep track of the civilized portions of society so I can avoid the uncivilized sections.
If society is so civilized, how come we still have muggings, rapes, home invasions....................
Clames
(2,038 posts)Are you sure? You sure they aren't started by fire ants?
Seems obvious that even under the high volume firing of military machine guns that such concerns are considered too remote to cease range operations. Common sense at work though, you should try it some time.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)or similar nonsense. You are right - it's not funny in the least.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)that line willy nilly. honestly Hoyt, I don't think the Admin would care for it at all.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)You chose to jump in with inaccuracies. But push the Alert button if you like.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)never mind. you are just too silly to bother the jury's time with an Alert. the Admin on the other hand have legal issues to consider. Democracy = Revolution that is Just too Rich for words.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It's BS and most often used by right wing gun nuts.
Maybe, you should try being a bit more discerning.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)What about those of us whose rationale for arming up centers around self defense against violent crime?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)At least that is the trend concerning number of firearms vs crime, or so the FBI says.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)without all the friggin guns in circulation.
The only people claiming more guns reduce crime (or attempting to slide it by), are those just trying to rationalize their bad gun habit.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Oh. Without guns, they would get a job? Maybe instead of home invasions they would attain gainful employment at a knife factory?
Logic is antithetical to religion.
To be a gun-religionist in good standing, you have to renounce logic.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Free speech means neo-nazis have the right to march.
Restrictions on how the police may act ensures that occasionally guilty people (even murderers) will walk.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Utah Gov. Herbert Signs Law Mandating 72-Hour Wait for Abortion
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Utah-abortion-wait-Herbert/2012/03/21/id/433303
This governor has so many great ideas.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)has been given some bad advice. I would like to know what is exactly behind this comment. Somebody within the state wants gun owners off the land, period.