BBC had some reporters with rather inside access to the burned ruins of California (one guy said he also reported for Fox) then they went to another reporter who was amidst smokey ruins and basically rummaging through ammunition stores. She held up some charred cartridges while mentioning the rather large amount of ammo she’s seen and little explosions around. I reckon her point was “Americans keep lots of ammo and guns” (wow, surprise surprise) yet this seemed not only dangerously uninformed but more like a Possibly Really Bad Situation.
I guess I just hope that reporters don’t abuse their access to an area of California that catches fire or crumbles into the sea every year. Maybe this year is especially fiery. If I lived there and had guns and ammo, it’s going with me along with my vast wine and Porto collection.
Several days ago, I saw some footage of a man going through the ruins of his home, and he pulled up a melted-together pile of guns, and who knows what else.
Considering that Britain still occasionally has to deal with discover of unexploded munitions from WWII, I hope she never gets coverage of such a find.
(Pictures her rapping on a rusty bomb casing while reporting)
Ammo will explode if it’s in direct contact with flames. I remember a friend of mine throwing a 7.62x39 round into a campfire. (Yea, he was an idiot.) We ran back about 20 feet, then heard a loud “Pop.”
I dunno, bullets are pretty hard to set off without hitting them with a firing pin shaped object, and not super dangerous when not contained in an chamber (I’m in the process of rewatching Mythbusters and one of the things they test was ammunition on a bonfire, and it was surprisingly not dangerous)
Not that it’s a particularly advisable thing to do but its not going to wipe out the film crew, even in the absolute worst case.
I’m struggling to understand what the OP is saying. It seems to be “I saw a clip of reporters at a burned up gun store. Mumble mumble I don’t know Something something”.
Do you have any actual contention? Or question? Color me confused.
Artwork! At least the guy knew what else he had in his gun cabinet / garage / shed.
“Let’s rake through the rubble till we find a melted pistol or rifle and charred rifle cartridge!”
It’s MPSIMS so no question. I guess if “contention” would be that the firefighters have left the smouldering fields of rubble to actually put out fires elsewhere and it’s not a good idea to let reporters sift through rubble looking for cool camera-ready stuff. Many garages and kitchens and attics etc… are likely to have noxious chemicals and other things that after being on fire might be even more dangerous than a bottle of bleach under the melted sink.
Gotcha. Makes sense. A intact suburb is a very low concentration hazmat site. One that’s all burned up might contain all sorts of slightly greater hazards. Probably not much of a risk in the real world, but more than zero.
So I was wondering about this. Did they need to get the permission of the (presumably long since evacuated) home owner to root around in the remains of their home? Or is there some weird law that says in situations like this the authorities are responsible for the burned homes, so they only need permission from the fire dept?
I recall the first reporter being asked about how he was given access and he said he also reports for Fox and that seemed to be enough of an answer and they moved on, then went to the woman reporter. Neither of them had any visible protection like even a mask - maybe their winter gloves and Wellies boots but they didn’t show.
I feel watching the BBC or any British news “Americans have lots of guns” are their low content slow news day stories. “We went into a gun shop and were SHOCKED at what Americans are able to buy” stories I saw as late as last year.
