Sunday, April 29, 2012

Alaska Pipeline Damaged by Gunfire

via Now I Know

On October 4, 2001, Mr. Lewis proved, while his parents may have been connoisseurs of baby names (or, at least, pairing first names with the family surname), that wisdom skipped a generation. His rap sheet already included charges of theft, burglary, drunk driving, and weapons violations. But that day, he'd accidentally add criminal mischief and oil pollution to that list. At roughly 2:30 in the afternoon, Daniel Carson Lewis defiled his good name (or, what was left of it) and took five shots at the pipeline with his rifle. One of his bullets hit a weld -- a joint where two pipe sections had been welded together. While the pipeline is covered by a layer of galvanized steel which is typically resistant to gunshots, the joint was a weak point. It burst open and oil came rushing out, at the rate of 140 gallons per minute according to the Associated Press

In total, over six thousand barrels leaked out of the pipeline due to Lewis's crime; roughly 4,000 of them were recovered. The damage to the pipeline required it to be shut down for two and a half days, delaying nearly three million barrels of oil. Two acres of tundra were damaged by Lewis's drunken riflery. Lewis was sentenced to sixteen years in prison and ordered to pay for the cleanup costs, totaling $17 million, which, of course, he will almost certainly never be able to afford.


  1. Bottle Rocket? Punkerpan? Ninja Tortise?

  2. "Bottle Rocket? Punkerpan? Ninja Tortise?"

    "Doubtfully ironic comment? A lame gunzloonz attempt at humor? Teh Burnin' Stoopit?"

    I'll go with the last one.

  3. Mr. Lewis fucked up big time. He shouldajust tolt them gummint people that he thought the pipeline was a really,Really,REALLY big ol' "Arctic Silversnake" and he was just tryin' to save the Elk of St. Sarah of Wasilla from satanic predation. Well, that OR perch a 2 yo on the pipe and shoot him in the chest, stupidently.

  4. Mikeb, you do what many of my students do. You describe in little detail a problem, but you offer no solution. Please do explain specifically how you would keep guns out of the hands of this man. He's already a prohibited person, likely. He's a poster child for a three strikes law. But short of taking guns away from all of us, how would you stop him?

    1. I told you before you can't work backwards from a single incident or a single person and ask what would have prevented him or it.

      What you can do is work forward with a comprehensive set of gun control laws like the ones I'm always talking about and rest assured that FEWER of these guys would end up with guns.

  5. Note. It does not take an "assault rifle" or a pistol w/ "high cap" mags to do what this guy did. A single-shot rifle (the kind the anti-weapons folks say they do not want to take away) can do this.

  6. "Note. It does not take an "assault rifle" or a pistol w/ "high cap" mags to do what this guy did."

    It doesn't take a machine gun to kill 7 or 8 people in one attack, just a KKKrazzeepants wit teh gunz. You gunzloonz keep saying that mikeb302000 and other posters and commenters who do not agree with you say this and say that.

    "A single-shot rifle (the kind the anti-weapons folks say they do not want to take away) can do this."

    The simple fact is that both me and mikeb302000 have stated, quite
    clearly, that we are not for confiscating peoples' firearms. That Greg Camp and others choose to ignore this and keep lying about mikeb302000's or my position is their problem, not ours. Greg Camp has stated, unequivocally, numerous times, that he and everyone else who want to haz teh gunz have to right to have any and all gunz that they want--well, except them machine gunz'n'stuff.

    Do you, btw, have a link to the report that says the .338 used was a bolt action/single shot design? I've looked at about six or eight stories that mention the caliber but not the action of the weapon.

    1. 1. A .338 Lapua is commonly a bolt action rifle, but the point that we keep making is that it's not the machine; it's the person.

      2. I'm not lying when I characterize your position. I'm also not being an idiot. You spit and sputter about how you don't want to take away our guns, and yet you are positively gleeful over reporting any accident or murder or foul deed with a firearm. You go on and on about the restrictions that you want. We never hear you talk about how you know that owning and carrying guns is a right. What conclusion should we draw, Democommie?

  7. "1. A .338 Lapua is commonly a bolt action rifle,"

    that is not a citation, that is an assertion, a citation will be required.

    "but the point that we keep making is that it's not the machine; it's the person."

    I'm fairly certain that neither mikeb302000 nor I have ever said that weapons, aside from those that are legally banned, ARE the problem. I know for certain that I've been consistent in mocking, ridiculing, pointing towards and laughing at idiotz (yes, I mean people like you) and not their selection of penis substitutes.

    It does appear the the Lapua .338 cartridge is designed for long range "hunting" (aw, c'mon, we all KNOW it's a sniper's wetdream of a weppin'!)--very good ballistics according to the six or so accounts that I read. And it's just what every paranoic gunzloon needz to complete his fine collection of deathdealing "tools". HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOah!

    "You go on and on about the restrictions that you want."

    Wow, you complain about me calling you a fucking LIAR and tell another fucking LIE while doing so. Do you self-edit, ever?

    "We never hear you talk about how you know that owning and carrying guns is a right."

    You also NEVR, EVER have read anything by me saying that it isn't a right for you or anyone else to do so. I HAVE said that there is NO "right", constitutional or otherwise that is without limit. You and your gunzloonzpalz hold that your 2nd Amendment "right" to bolster your self-confidence by packing heat is limitless and superior to the "rights" of those who don't want to be forced to live with your paranoia; you're full of shit.

    You drew the conclusion that your right to haz teh gunz is superior to all other constitutional right long before you came to this blog; a conclusion that is based on indignorance abetted by fear, selfishness and a lack of self-esteem. That you can't comfortably live in the world without carrying a gun everywhere you go says much more about you than it does about the rest of hte world.

    1. Apparently, you're unaware that "you" is the same in the singular and the plural in standard English. Perhaps I should have said, y'all. As I've done before, I took the totality of your side's proposals and comments.

      But let's look at each of you separately.

      Democommie: Rants and curses and mocks, but never offers anything by way of a solution.

      Mikeb: Gets emotional over gun deaths, proposes a pile of bureaucracy and regulation that would not stop many of those deaths, but doesn't really want to offend anyone.

      Dog Gone: Makes vague references to some book written in the thirteenth century and implies that we're stupid because we haven't read it (even though some of us have), believes that whatever she thinks is an example of critical thinking, and wants to ban private ownership of firearms, even though she'll deny that. Except when she's saying it.

      Laci: The gun grabbing equivalent of the angry old cuss at the end of the bar. He wants you to fight him. He goads and goads, but in the end, he's got nothing.

      Jadegold: What to say? Every group has its poseur, so it seems.

      So Democommie, when I add all that up, I see a totality that is against private ownership of firearms.

  8. DC.

    My point is I am trying to get to the point of this article. If you are not for an all out confiscation of guns - then how would you prevent this from happening? Are you really challenging that a single-shot rifle could do the above?

    Any person, under current law or Mike's "if I were king law", could legally own a hunting rifle and take pot shots at signs and the occasional oil pipeline. You might take away his right to legally own his gun but that does/did not not stop thousands of gallons of oil being spilled. It does not stop this guy from illegally getting his hands on another gun either. This article seems to be of the poisoning of the well variety that appears common around here.