Machine guns on the Great Lakes

[Notso_Ken]

The maps are right here:
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131145/
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131144/
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131148/
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131143/
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131141/
http://piersystem.com/go/doc/443/131146/

Yeah, I had found the pictures easily enough, but the scale is real poor for trying to plot accurately (and no good scale on it to boot). I've got a decent chart for plotting on, with a better one on it's way. And, I found the acvtual coordinates (posted earlier), so I've got the real deal to plot out versus wreck locations. When I get done, I'll scan it in and post it (definitely for Sanilac, others we'll see how far I get) so others can see.

Ken

 

[Notso_Ken]

Here is a link to a story my paper did about it.

And another.

Interesting read!

"Each range would be used two or three times a year "

Thanks,

Ken

 

[Meister481]

It's an evil gun, OH NO! For pete's sake, the coast guard is part of the US military. The military has guns. They need someplace to fire them for training. What's the big deal? Indiana is a gun friendly state so I welcome them to come to our shores and practice anytime they wish.

Machine guns are legal for civilain ownership in the United States. I have fired a fully automatic machine gun legally outside of a prescribed safety zone and nobody got hurt, killed, or even awakened from a nap. Let's not go all Handgun Control Inc on this because somebody said machinegun.

GJ coasties, Thanks for keeping us safe.

 

[foneguy]

and the coast guard are dot , not military, thats how they can board any vessel with out starting a war! like someone else stated they are already armed to the teeth, the are being nice and telling all where they plan on target shooting.....maybe they will sink a couple of things to dive on...this could be a good thing right....

 

[Meister481]

Not military? Coast guard ships sank uboats in ww2.

http://www.gocoastguard.com/faq.html

 

[archman]

"While some have argued that environmental hazards would be negligible, the Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the live-fire training would deposit 3,100 kilograms of lead per year into the Great Lakes. “That's more lead than the entire state of Michigan and all of its industries and pollution sources emit to surface waters every year," says a spokesman for the Michigan Environmental Council."

Oh man, this argument is so weak, I weep for peoples' intelligence. 3,100 kilos is a drop in the bucket, compared to all the point and non-point sources that have to be entering those lakes annually. Heck, even the lead fishing sinkers lost every year have to add up to some serious poundage.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I say give whatever firepower they want. If it keeps the nasties out and help punch holes in drug smugglers give em a destroyer or two. Wish I had a mingun on my ride for those times you just feel like letting off some steam.

 

[robzr]

Oh man, this argument is so weak, I weep for peoples' intelligence. 3,100 kilos is a drop in the bucket, compared to all the point and non-point sources that have to be entering those lakes annually. Heck, even the lead fishing sinkers lost every year have to add up to some serious poundage.

You weep for peoples intelligence because someone objects to an additional 3 1/2 tons of lead being deposited into a lake annually?

Wow...you're a pretty sensitive guy.

Rob

 

[robzr]

I say give whatever firepower they want. If it keeps the nasties out and help punch holes in drug smugglers give em a destroyer or two. Wish I had a mingun on my ride for those times you just feel like letting off some steam.

Yah dude, that's a really great mindset. People with mindsets like that start unnecessary wars, killing hundreds of thousands of people while being completely counterproductive to the original stated intent. I feel so safe knowing glad people like you vote!

Rob

 

[archman]

You weep for peoples intelligence because someone objects to an additional 3 1/2 tons of lead being deposited into a lake annually?

The insignificant lead imports aren't really of much concern to me. Grossly misleading the public is. The Michigan Environmental Council wants the people to believe that this is a serious pollution concern, when in reality it barely merits mention in the appendices of grey literature. I do not think they understand lead pollution all that well. Or water pollution at all, for that matter.

The council would have been much better off arguing a case with noise pollution against waterfowl. It's a weak argument, but it's not ridiculous.