I HAPPENED TO NOTICE Mayors blast Coast Guard today:

A group of mayors from 80 Great Lakes cities in the U.S. and Canada called on the Coast Guard Monday to drop plans for offshore weapons training on the lakes.

Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy declined to join the effort, instead offering his support of the Coast Guard plan to create 34 machine-gun ranges on the Great Lakes.

The Coast Guard released the proposal in August. The firing ranges would be designed for a weapon that can shoot 10 lead bullets a second. The agency has said it must train its crews to handle new, more powerful M240-B machine guns.

I hadn't heard of this plan before, but a quick google turned up a fair amount of zaniness. Here's a sample (all emphasis is mine):

CBC News in Canada:

Politicians representing Canadian cities bordering the Great Lakes have complained that they cannot participate in the public hearings, even though they are near some of the proposed firing ranges.

One site is within 40 kilometres of Kingston, Ont...

[Sarnia, Ont., Mayor Mike Bradley] said the new firing ranges are a huge backward step.

"They effectively have now made the Great Lakes a military zone," he said, adding that the Canada-U.S. border used to be the longest undefended border in the world, and that claim to fame is now a myth.

40 kilometers is just about 25 miles. The M240B has a maximum range of less than 2.5 miles. It fires the 7.62 NATO (7.62x51mm) round. And the idea that live-fire training ranges makes an area a "military zone" is just plain silly. Every state in the Union has training ranges. Doest that mean the entire United States is one big military zone?

Then there's Reuters with Guns on U.S. Coast Guard vessels trigger protest:

"This is just boys with guns wanting to have fun on the Great Lakes," Bradley said. "Government agencies on both sides of the border are obtaining more money and, of more concern, more power by using the word 'terrorism' or the words 'homeland security."'...

Passing boats or planes could be endangered if bullets are fired into the air from pitching boats in the famously rough lake waters, [Jennifer Nalbone of the environmental group Great Lakes United] said. She suggested the Coast Guard could train on simulators.

A Coast Guard spokesman, Chief Robert Lanier, said seamen needed to train on the lakes to get the feel of firing from a moving vessel.

"We have done everything we can to make it as safe as possible," Lanier said, including having a safety officer on hand to halt the exercise if necessary and broadcasts on marine band radio for boaters to steer clear.

Great Lakes fishermen say few use their marine radios anymore -- mobile phones have a longer range -- but find it ironic that the agency they have relied on to rescue them could soon be a hidden danger.

"Boys with guns wanting to have fun"? Mayor Bradley can't seem to decide whether this is a 'military zone' or just some 'boys' wanting to have some 'fun'. Given the way most Canadians seem to treat their own military and the lack of support and funding from the Canadian government, maybe Mayor Bradley doesn't get the concept of border security.

As for training on simulators, I'm sure that the Coasties will get plenty of that, as well. But nothing replaces practicing with the real thing. Maybe, if the lead threatens to kill all the marine life in the Lakes, Ms. Nalbone could just watch television shows about fish instead of seeing real ones.

And it's pretty clear that Reuters doesn't support the plan. They seem to think that the Coast Guard will suddenly become a 'hidden danger' because they want to practice with the weapons they're going to use to do the unsavory parts of their job.

But the Gun Guys take the cake:

Using firearms is never safe, no matter what precautions are taken

Hmmm. That pretty much ends any chance of honest and meaningful discussion right there, doesn't it?

Now, is this a major reason to fight for laws against guns and gun violence? Not at all. There are plenty more persuasive reasons to fight for stronger gun laws, not least of which is that guns are, in fact, physically dangerous.

This is the sort of simpleton rhetoric that dooms the anti-gun crowd. Guns are, in fact, "physically dangerous"? I hear this quite a bit, but no one has explained to me yet what's dangerous about guns. (Yes, yes, a PERSON with a gun might be dangerous, but that's something else entirely...)

Really, go read the whole thing. It's amazing.

Anyway, I don't necessarily support all these firing ranges. I haven't thought about it until today. In fact, I guess I probably would have assumed that the Coast Guard had firing ranges all along. How are they supposed to do their jobs? With a nightstick? If it's with firearms of any sort, they need to practice on the waters of the big lakes.

Maybe the number of ranges or their locations can be negotiated. But the need for the Coast Guard to be able to train with its weapons should not be up for discussion.

UPDATE: I found some great maps of the proposed ranges (made using Chart Navigator) at Great-Lakes.org. I posted the Lake Michigan maps, and check out the site for the rest of ranges.