Firing a gun on Lake Ontario

[LakeSuperior]

mottseng
Your post has little to do with the Great Lakes and Michigan and only provide general guidance. Additionally, it doesn't mention gun lockers or safes and in fact, quote from your post,

"If you intend to carry a firearm aboard your vessel, verify the latest gun laws for your specific state and any other areas you travel. All states have this information readily available to boaters on both permitting and boating requirement websites."

It specifically directs you to check with local states for specific local information.

The world is already complex and confusing. Why not stick to the facts and to what you know? As a former police officer and especially as an engineer facts and data are job prerequisites.

[Bolitho]

I see a few people debating the description of a "vehicle" as defined in the Highway Traffic Act which is provincial legislation (Ontario). You start popping rounds off for no reason I can assure you it will not be a provincial HTA investigation, it will be criminal. As ex-military and a current police officer......I hope its worth it to hear that banging noise !!! Have fun. Get a good lawyer.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I don't think you can really make that claim, firstly there is no clear "backstop", secondly there is the serious issues of water and ricochets. furthermore there is the issue that the water ( unlike say in the woods during hunting season) is not perceived as a common place to experience firearms activity and people can unwittingly put themselves in harms way .

Im not arguing against the OP, but on balance, I fail to see the need to engage in that particular activity , legal or not. There are plenty places to go and discharge firearms to your hearts content.

Dave

I feel quite comfortable making that claim because the risk is pretty darn low.

The point to using a backstop is because there is something you don't want to hit past the backstop. If it's 5 miles to the nearest item you are concerned about the potential of hitting, there is no need for a backstop. There is no backstop in the woods either. Is there a risk? Yeah but everything we do has risk. In the situaiton origianlly described, the risk is probably about on par with going to a shooting range.

Not sure where you are but duck hunting happens on the water all the time. You may get a nervous-nelly calling in but nothing unusual about it.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Not sure where you are but duck hunting happens on the water all the time. You may get a nervous-nelly calling in but nothing unusual about it.

My concerns were directed at rifles, no issue with shotguns,

dave

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I feel quite comfortable making that claim because the risk is pretty darn low.

The point to using a backstop is because there is something you don't want to hit past the backstop. If it's 5 miles to the nearest item you are concerned about the potential of hitting, there is no need for a backstop. There is no backstop in the woods either. Is there a risk? Yeah but everything we do has risk. In the situaiton origianlly described, the risk is probably about on par with going to a shooting range.

Shooting a rifle on the water the risks may be low but they are not insignificant. I can say that from personal experience. When I was about 16 was shooting cans off the water with a 22. This was on a small pond on a calm day.

About the third shot I heard a loud thunk on a dock 15-20' away immediately after I fired. Very curious and a bit startled I went over and found a fresh hole in the piling with a 22 slug embedded in it. I checked the angles from where I was standing and where I was shooting and figured the ricochet was about 165 degrees from the line of sight. Based on this experience I would think a 45-90 degree ricochet to very possible on the water.

Now I don't shoot rifles into the water anymore so cannot report any repeats of the incident. Maybe it was a very rare fluke but once was enough for me.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Shooting a rifle on the water the risks may be low but they are not insignificant. I can say that from personal experience. When I was about 16 was shooting cans off the water with a 22. This was on a small pond on a calm day.

About the third shot I heard a loud thunk on a dock 15-20' away immediately after I fired. Very curious and a bit startled I went over and found a fresh hole in the piling with a 22 slug embedded in it. I checked the angles from where I was standing and where I was shooting and figured the ricochet was about 165 degrees from the line of sight. Based on this experience I would think a 45-90 degree ricochet to very possible on the water.

Now I don't shoot rifles into the water anymore so cannot report any repeats of the incident. Maybe it was a very rare fluke but once was enough for me.

Could have hit a rock or other hard object on the far side of the pond? If the pond was calm, that would be one magic shot if it only hit water and there were no waves.

I'm not saying the risk is zero, just that it's unlikely enough that I wouldn't worry about it.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Could have hit a rock or other hard object on the far side of the pond? If the pond was calm, that would be one magic shot if it only hit water and there were no waves.

I'm not saying the risk is zero, just that it's unlikely enough that I wouldn't worry about it.

I was shooting at a can about 100' out in the pond which was over 100 yds wide. I was a pretty good shot, captain of the high school rifle team plus I also saw the water jump next to the can where I hit so no chance it hit a rock or something on the far bank.

I was completely amazed and still cannot explain why or how it happened, only that it did. My best guess the nose of the bullet hit a ripple (it wasn't totally flat calm), dug into the water's surface and turned around.

And I am not saying the odds of this happening are high but some things I just don't want to play the odds. Even if the round only ricocheted off at 45 which I think has a reasonably high probability, that opens up a pretty wide arc you have to watch when shooting on the water. So now you don't have to just watch straight down range but also off to both sides.

[Nexion]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I was shooting at a can about 100' out in the pond which was over 100 yds wide. I was a pretty good shot, captain of the high school rifle team plus I also saw the water jump next to the can where I hit so no chance it hit a rock or something on the far bank.

I was completely amazed and still cannot explain why or how it happened, only that it did. My best guess the nose of the bullet hit a ripple (it wasn't totally flat calm), dug into the water's surface and turned around.

And I am not saying the odds of this happening are high but some things I just don't want to play the odds. Even if the round only ricocheted off at 45 which I think has a reasonably high probability, that opens up a pretty wide arc you have to watch when shooting on the water. So now you don't have to just watch straight down range but also off to both sides.

Perhaps you saw it skip off the water and it hit something on shore to make such a dangerous ricochet. It was wise for you to change your ways after a freak incident like this. Shooting across water is bound to be unpredictable. I'm a big fan of guns. Have been ever since I was a child. My father raise me like that I guess and stated that guns were not for hunting. They aren't even for home protection.

The reason our constitution grants us a right to arms is purely to secure the country from invaders and our own government. This came from a Marine, Police Officer, Detective and retired as an Indian Gaming Inspector. He spent his entire life in enforcement, and I wouldn't consider him "paranoid" or a right wing nutter.

Still, in reply to the OP, the responsibility to properly operate a firearm is in the hands of the gun owner. Shooting at garbage on the lake only introduces more refuse into the lake and fragments what you were targeting. Shooting at wildlife you have no intention of eating is something a sociopath would do. I wont even shoot a seal who steals my fish. I might shake my fist, ponder putting a cap in him but in the end I'll just wish the little bastard ill. Hopefully he'll have stolen a big fat skip jack you didn't really want and be done harassing you for the day. Of course, if the game wardens say they need to be culled... lock and load.