Prairie_Scouter

Aloha, Kahuna,

And Hau`oli L Ho`omaika`i! (ok, I looked it up Happy Thanksgiving, anyway...)

Yeah, I'm pretty embarassed by both parties. Kind of reminds me of the House of Commons in Great Britain. Half of the fighting isn't even about issues; it's just attempts to make the other party look bad. About the only thing some of them are starting to have in common is a dislike for the conduct of the war in Iraq.

I suspect a pretty ugly battle over Alito. One really interesting part will be if the Republicans try to squelch discussion of Alito's personal views after they tried to get the same kind of information from Miers. I don't know if Alito is controversial enough for the Democrats to try and filibuster, but it's a possibility. I doubt that they'd be able to get the compromise group together like they did last time when Bush injected a candidate (can't remember the name right now) knowing that it would force the issue. More game playing. I dunno, but it seems to me that whole thing was a lot more civil when the ABA was more or less leading the judgement of capabilities on these candidates, but I could be remembering it through rose colored glasses.

Aloha Kahuna,

I think I'd agree pretty much with your assessment of MAD. Not completely dismantled, but made less dangerous. Now we can only blow up the whole world 3 or 4 times over. Of course, now you've got the problem with the old USSR having all these nukes around with very few people who really know how to safely control them. Kind of like the gun situation in the U.S.

If you machined the stock of your shotgun a bit, I'd bet it'd make a nifty 2 wood

Oh, yeah, and what about Samuel Alito? I think we were talking about that 50 or 60 posts ago . I dunno. The guys gives off a lot of mixed signals. Maybe that's a good thing. I just want an intelligent jurist who isn't tied to either side of any argument, and can keep his personal feelings out of his decisions. From the joy expressed by conservatives, I suspect that he may not be that guy, but people on the Court have surprised people in the past.

fgoodwin,

Sounds like a great idea. And I bet the volunteer leaders for such an organization would only have to set aside 1 hour per week, too

Aloha Kahuna,

Yes, and MAD is gradually being dismantled because of the recognized danger of more people wanting to join the club, and with more members, the more likely it is that some accident will occur, or some planned event caused by the relative ease of procurement. I think the same is true of guns. Yes, there is road rage, etc., but the answer isn't to make it easy for people to shoot at each other while they're winging down the highway (as beautiful as the roadways are in some areas of your lovely State ). We need to gradually cut back on the perceived need to answer violence with violence.

Yes, it's reality now; the world is a dangerous place, but not as dangerous as the news media would have you think. We all know somebody who's been involved in some sort of violent act, I'd bet, but as much as we might like to, the answer isn't to all go our and arm ourselves.

Seems to me that this discussion is headed in the direction of the old MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy of the 50's and 60's, that is, just keep on raising the stakes by creating what amounts to a residential arms race. The way to make us all more safe is to arm more and more people?

Is that really what this country's come to? So, the argument is what?, that the way to make us really safe in our homes is to have lots and lots of gun owners, purchases without records, and no mandatory safety training? That's essentially the stance here, no?

It sounds to me that this is really a defeatist attitude, one that assumes that law and order has lost, and we're basically on our own. That's really sad. That fact that so many states have passed legislation to make it possible makes it just that much sadder.

Huntr,

Sounds to me like you're doing a fine job. It sounds to me like this is more about what DM expected Scouting to be rather than (1) what it is, and (2) what her son expected it to be. You'll run into that at all stages of Scouting, I think. Having fun is part of Scouting. At the Cub Scout level, you'll have parents who don't think they should be playing games, just doing requirements. At the Boy Scout level, you'll have parents who think every activity should be aimed at meeting some requirement, either for advancement or a merit badge.

Keep up the good work, and make sure you're having fun YOURSELF as well.

Scouter4321,

You're sure not alone in this, and we who are dealing with it are always appreciative of any support that anyone gives us. So, here are my thoughts.....

My troop has about 20 Scouts in it. A couple of Scoutmasters back, we had a "problem" during the tenure of one SM, and membership dropped quite a bit. The SM previous to me has done a great job of rebuilding as far as he could. Membership is back on its way up. As our size has grown, we've gotten more into using the patrol method. Some of the older Scouts aren't "with it" yet, and are still seeing the patrol leader positions as popularity contests. We've lost a few Scouts who preferred just showing up and screwing around for 90 minutes while a handful worked on actual Scout activities. I've had to remove 2 youth leaders who weren't showing up and didn't take their role seriously. (we've gone to a "3 strikes" rule for the leaders, ie, 3 unexcused absences and you're out.)

Last spring we started using patrols more extensively. It's been difficult for the youth leaders, and we've spent a good deal of time training and mentoring. We started using the Program Features this year, which has actually made things quite a bit easier from a planning standpoint and taken some pressure off the youth leaders to come up with things to do. We're working on restructuring our patrols as well to get more in line with BSA recommendations, and the Scouts have been very positive on this aspect. It's a slow go. But I am at the point with our troop meetings that I really don't have to say much anymore. I've been working A LOT with the SPL, and he's picking up on things pretty quickly. We've, more and more, gotten away from the meetings becoming a freeforall at some point. The trick really just seems to be making sure that the activities are well laid out and fill up the meeting. Suddenly, guys I hardly saw are starting to show up more.

But, to be honest, I think we need to get a couple of more "harvests" of Webelos to really get the thing going. They come in with no preconceived notions, and can get right into the new program. So, over the next couple of years, my goal is to get the troop up in size to about 30-35, which should give us 4 patrols or so, and work extensively on our older Scout program, which is kind of weak right now.

One continuing challenge that I'm sure everyone runs into is that in addition to being the SM, I also ended up being the "acting" activity chair, advancements chair, and recruiting chair. So, right now, it's taking up a LOT of my free time. It's fun, to be sure, but sometimes I could use a little less "fun" One thing I might throw out is that over the summer I started using some software called Troopmaster. Still learning it, but boy, so far I like it a lot.

All the best, and hang in there. It'll get better, but you might as well know that in your situation as described, not only do the Scouts need to get with the program, so does the SM. That could be a challenge as well, depending on how he views things.

Sorry, Dan, as I was typing that in, I figured somebody would ask about it. There is a "brag vest program" that is unofficial as far as BSA goes, but it is supported by many Councils. The Cub Scouts start with a red vest (either purchased at the Scout Shop or parent-made using easily available patterns on the 'Net) and a circle patch on the back. The segments are curved patches that make ever growing circles around the patch. Everyone seems to have their own standards for how a Scout earns them, although from everyone I talk to, the idea seems to be "the more the merrier". Should be much easier to attain than the "sanctioned" awards. It seems like every Council has their own source for the segments. About a year ago, there was a rumor in our Council that the National Supply Division was going to take over supplying the segments until we found out that their cost was going to be quite a bit more than what we were paying. Not sure what exactly happened, but we're still getting segments and they're still the same price.

I'm a year removed now from being the CC of the pack, but here's what I remember, just for reference....

We spent about $1300 per year on various awards for a pack of about 50 Scouts. They dues cover a new book for each Scout, their neckerchief, and a pinewood derby car. Everything else comes out of popcorn sales. That includes about $130 a year for Pinewood Derby awards.

We did place some limits to keep things under control and try for a more even cash flow. We will pay for up to 5 brag vest segments per month, 3 belt loops, 3 pins. No limit on other awards, but since those are harder to earn, they aren't as frequent. Those limits help to spread the expense and somewhat avoid any Scout getting "too many" things at a pack night.

I'm a big believer in giving the Scout something for as many things as you can that require any kind of effort. Even just participating is important. These are recognition for the individual Scout, and keepsakes for them. It's not about competition for who's got the most. Except for at the moment of delivery, I don't really see the Scouts talking much about who got more stuff. I gave them a list every month describing what every segment, pin, etc. was for. If they keep those, they can look back 30 years later and remember what project they got that vest segment for.

GPS on phones "merely" an FCC regulation? Yes, not directly connected with Patriot, but a part of the same mindset. And it's a very tricky one. The 911 usage is very important and could be a godsend to those in an emergency, but the chance for subversion by the government exists as well. What bothers me quite a bit about the Administration's stance on so many things now is that they demand that things be done without oversight. So much secrecy. "Trust us". I don't think so. Even Ronald Reagan said "trust, but verify".

OGE, absolutely agree. Enforce the laws we have. That will go a long way towards decreasing gun violence, and crime in general. But we don't want to get too carried away. We've had a whole bunch of people on death row here in Illinois that have been exonerated when it was found that so-called "law and order" prosecutors, and the police that support them, have gotten a bit carried away and convicted the wrong people. In the meantime, the real criminals still walk the street while those prosecutors get happily re-elected.

I still think that some sort of safety training should be mandatory. In the hands of an incompetent owner, a weapon is a threat to everyone around them. This is one of those cases where the rights of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I have a hard time picturing the defensive scenario in this concealed carry thing. A guy walks up to you with his gun drawn and demands your wallet. Do you really think you can get your gun out and fire it before he blows you away? This isn't like the movies where the bad guys always miss. Even out in the land of hunting (ok, I personally don't see the attraction, but that's just me), wouldn't you feel a bit better knowing that everyone out there with you has been properly trained in the use of their weapon?

Torveaux, c'mon. Licensing free speech is kind of a stretch from this discussion, don't you think? Although given some of the reporting I've seen, some sort of competency check might be in order

Pack, I have to agree on the "fatalistic view". If we've gotten to the point that we start to think that the more guns we have, the safer we are, then we've essentially given up on the police and the law to protect our society in general. If we do that, we're back to the West in the late 1800's.

This is interesting.

The question is whether a unit can require uniform wear as was noted by someone. I think I'm kind of with Ed on this one unless someone can provide more definitive information. Uniforming is a method, but I don't think anyone can force the wearing of the uniform. Does anyone know of any published BSA information that clearly settles it one way or the other?

If a unit can require uniforms, then it's pretty clear. If the boy doesn't want to wear the uniform, he should find another unit. But, it's also clear that once that boy is accepted by a unit, knowing his feeling on uniforms, the unit can't hold him back because of it. That would be adding an advancement requirement, which is expressly forbidden, whether it's for the ever nebulous Scout Spirit, or anything else.

I know a lot of teenage Scouts who wouldn't be caught dead wearing their uniform where a schoolmate could see them. Yet, they are very good Scouts; it's just the peer pressure, and I don't think it's really Scouting, it's the uniform itself, which is not exactly a fashion item, and in this day of fashion consciousness, that does matter. No teenager wants to be seen as "uncool", and sometimes clothes define that. That doesn't make them "not brave" or anything of the sort; there's nothing "morally brave" about wearing the uniform; it just makes them a kid trying to get along in the world as best they can. By the time they hit 18 and make Eagle, Scouting is cool again, and it won't be a problem.

Rooster, where would you draw the line on what would be "too evangelistic"? How about a flyer that says "If you're not , you will burn in Hell. Come to this Sunday". Would that be ok to put into 3rd graders mailbox? Or, "Only the knows the true Savior. See us." Or, how about a flyer with a picture of an aborted fetus with the caption, "this could have been you. Come to "Church of your choice" to learn why". Ok for a 7th grader? By the time the flyer gets home, the kid's already seen it; too late for the parent to throw it away.

You asked why the schools should get to censor, yet you made up your own list of "inappropriate materials". I don't think anyone would disagree with your list, but, in the same vein as your comment, why do you get to choose what's inappropriate? From the perspective of a Jewish parent, religious flyers of any kind might be considered inappropriate.

It occurs to me that what you're talking about isn't really expression of religious freedom, it's just advertising.

I doubt that the schools have the time to review every flyer that everyone would like to put into their student's mailboxes, so very little is allowed in there that isn't directly school-related. I think it's less censoring religious freedom than it is just keeping out needless junkmail. And of course, in most areas, school boards aren't "self appointed". They're elected by the people in their school districts, supposedly reflecting the views of those people.

I think that are two different goals that need to be met. There are 2 components to the population of gun owners, legal owners and illegal owners. They also result in 2 different kinds of gun injuries, for the most part, and that is, accidental injuries, and purposeful injuries. Mandatory safety training would be aimed at lawful owners in an effort to decrease accidental injuries, and decrease the number of guns stolen and later used in crimes. Existing laws that punish gun users in the execution of a crime are probably already sufficient, but need to be fully enforced.

Growing up in Chicago.....

Remember, this was 40-50 years ago, and I can only speak to my neighborhood. Owning a gun was something that people out on the farms did to hunt out in the country. Only "bad guys" had guns in the city, or that was the perception. Criminals certainly weren't armed as well as the police at that time. You didn't hear stories of some little kid finding their dad's gun under a pillow and shooting their friend with it. Early efforts to do "gun sweeps" had some effect, to be sure, but the understanding was that for every gun taken from a criminal, there were probably 20 more hidden somewhere. These sweeps were generally done after some visible rise in criminal gun use, and so the public was, of course, enthusiastic in their support. It was during this time, I think, the discussions began on the topic of having more severe penalties for crimes committeed with a gun. More public support. Gang fights were "fights" in those days; very few people were killed in those fights, although they certainly got banged up pretty good. "Drive by shootings" didn't exist. People, by and large, wanted to get handguns out of the hands of criminals. By the early 70's, there was a visible increase in news stories about accidental shootings, ie, little Joey finds a gun in the house, shoots himself or his little brother. "Gun proliferation" stories started to show up more often. Public perception began to be (at least according to some news coverage) that there were lots and lots and lots of guns around, and nobody was really policing the situation in regards to safety or anything else. From the 70's to the 80's, increased use of guns in criminal activities, and the perception that by having guns in your home, you could somehow protect yourself. Gang fights turn into gang shootings, with people sitting innocently on their porches getting shot in the crossfire. By this time, there was probably a general feeling that were just too many guns around, period, with efforts beginning to limit their availability to everyone. 25 years later, nothing much has changed, except that there's probably many more guns available. That's how I remember seeing it from my old neighborhood, anyway.

In the end, I think you have to cover both ends. You need to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and also make sure that law abiding citizens aren't putting their neighbors at risk because they don't know how to handle their weapons.

Last year, the PTA in Illinois sent a letter to the local PTA's suggesting that they not sponsor Scout Troops because of problems with insurance. I don't know for sure, but was told that at least part of this was potential problems being caused by the perception that the newer BSA adult leader app was pushing leader liability down to the CO. I think that this interpretation was wrong as far as insurance is concerned, but that's what I heard.

Well, I guess that this means our plans to detonate a teeny tiny nuclear device at our day camp facility are out the window (This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

My advice to you would be to take Semper's post above, print it out, and stick it on your refrigerator.

Yes, you can quit whenever you want; this is a volunteer position, but you might consider the "all parents" meeting someone above suggested. Just lay it on the line for them. No support, no you as CM. Give them a couple of days to think about it, but give them a date. If no one steps up by then, you respectfully resign.

Remember that we're in this for the Scouts. Give the pack every chance to regroup, but remember also that you are only one person. Been there. You need to build a small core of people that are interested in making the pack successful. Get that and at least you can survive. Then, what you really do, honestly, is wait for new parents to join as Tigers, and get them involved. The existing group will eventually fade away. But don't get yourself so buried that you're not enjoying it. You're supposed to be having fun, too.

I'm with Semper on this one. If your pack has gotten to the point that they're willing to shell out that kind of cash, it's time to move on to something else. Winning has gotten WAY too important.

Our rule has always been that you have to use the standard BSA kit, and the parent and son have to make the car, with the son doing as much of the work as possible. Really, you don't NEED any power tools to make a car, but for basic shaping, using a power tool does make sense. We do polish the axles, and some folks will grind off imperfections on the wheel surfaces, but we have rules requiring that the basic geometry of the wheel remains, that is, you can't make the surface area smaller by rounding of the wheel surface, etc.

For those parents who want to buy premade cars because they are "tool challenged" we offer workshops where we bring in all our tools and help them get going. By the time the evening is over, all they need are standard hand tools and sandpaper.

Remember that Pinewood Derby isn't really supposed to be about the racing. It's about the parent and son getting together to work on the car. I have one son who built cars that were really fast, but I have another son who built the car just for the fun of building a cool looking car. They both had fun.

LongHaul,

I see your point, I really do. And I can see why you'd feel that way. It could be that my thinking is swayed by having grown up in the inner city of Chicago. Saw guns, never saw them used for good. Hear about moronic accidents all the time. It's not the law abiding and responsible gun owners that I worry about, really. They could probably pass a use and safety test without a problem. I don't think that that applies to the vast majority of gun owners, tho, although the numbers are just my guess.

Just seems to me that requiring some sort of safety training shouldn't be seen as an imposition, but a GOOD thing for all concerned.

Looking at the prices of many weapons I see online, it occurs to me that a person could put a really top notch security system in their home for an equal, or lesser, amount of money. So, it becomes sort of a comparison in my mind. Am I better off putting up defensive systems to keep the bad guys out in the first place, or have weapons to defend myself instead? And why use a killing weapon, when you can get an equally effective stopping effect with a high quality pepper spray cannistor? Could be effective range, I suppose. Interesting comparison, tho. What do you guys think?

And, I asked a question a few posts back about BSA stance on weapons in Scout units. If guns are such a good safety measure, why don't Scout leaders carry guns on outings? I think the only response I saw was something to the effect of "BSA is a private organization that can make its own rules". So, what is that saying? BSA is wrong and it'd be a good idea for leaders to carry weapons?

LongHaul,

You're right that making everyone pass a test to drive a car doesn't stop the small number of unlicensed drivers from doing whatever mayhem they might, but it does help to ensure that the vast majority of drivers are properly trained. I think the same can be true of handguns. I don't see how requiring proof that a person can safely use and store a gun infringes on your ability to lawfully own and use a weapon, unless you, for example, are a person who doesn't know how to safely use and store a gun, in which case you are threat to the safety of the community you live in. I don't consider this "focusing" on taking away anyone's rights; it would just be one in any number of laws used to make sure that the general public is protected as someone else exercises their rights. That doesn't take away one iota from efforts by law enforcement to apprehend those who break the law.

Why, on the other hand, do you seem so intent on letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry own a weapon that they have no clue how to use? Doesn't that just give lawful gun "operators" a bad name? Doesn't it just play into the hands of those who would like to outlaw guns altogether (a group I am not a part of)? Licensed use would seem to be a very small price to pay to offset the negative public persona that guns currently have in the general public.

As far as the judicial system not protecting us from gun toting felons, I'd have to agree, but I'm not sure where the problem is, or how you fix it. Are the police ignoring existing gun laws? I don't know, but would be interested in the thoughts of others.

Hmmm, if carrying a handgun is a good idea for general safety, how do you suppose BSA would feel about adult leaders carrying handguns in order to be able to protect their units on outings?

I think that Zahnada has hit the nail on the head about one thing. The main difference between the ideas presented by Brent and some others and the ideas presented by some others, including myself, is that he seems to feel the U.S. is safer with more guns in place; others think that less guns is the way to go. That's just a difference in philosophy that no amount of information on either side is going to change.

So, let me ask a question again. That is, what would be wrong with having a requirement in place that requires a gun owner to prove proficiency with the weapon and knowledge of standards for safe use and storage before they can take ownership of a weapon? It's been said that the NRA is very big on gun safety. Is that just for looks or would they be in favor of making their own safety standards mandatory? Is that too much to ask for the sake of community safety?

I think I read someplace about a year ago that there are something like 100 million guns in the U.S. Does anyone know if that's correct?

I still see most of the usual suspects posting. This is the time of year when there are a lot of Scout activities going on. I just returned from a weekend outing myself. As I'm typing this, the active user count is 215. Last Friday it was around 600.

And, I think over the past few months we've hashed out a lot of interesting topics. Could be some people are just taking a break, and not commenting quite as much as usual.

Aloha Kahuna,

Hmmm, come to think of it, I DO have a couple of neighbors who are probably better off walking the neighborhood with a gun than driving around in their cars.

I think you should have a big banquet the night before each family throws that breaker to make sure that their refrigerators are emptied out. Wouldn't want to let all that food spoil

Well, ok, as long as we're playing mind experiment....

Your son gets his Eagle and goes away to college. He studies foreign cultures and decides that he likes the historical underpinnings of the life of the Middle East bedouins. As part of a student exchange, he's placed in a university in the Middle East that does regular field trips to study the life of the natives. Your son disappears one day. Two years later you find out that he accidentally spent some time with a group who, among its members, had a terrorist known to the military, but no one else. Your son, as a known associate of this individual, was arrested shortly before a suspected upcoming terrorist attack. He's taken to a secret site in Europe, and tortured to measure the extent of his knowledge. He says nothing, but just in case, he's locked up in a solitary cell for the next two years. One day, the military says "oops", and releases him. You haven't heard from him in two years, and he's had no access to counsel to defend himself.

Are you a happy supporter of the current U.S. policy then?

Extreme situations sometime require extreme measures, but a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and we have to say "we will not cross this line". Otherwise, we are no better than our enemies.

The scenarios we draw up here would all make fine TV movies, but I think that the reality is that it doesn't happen as often as we might think. As a country, we should go on record as valuing human rights and supporting the Geneva Conventions, not looking for loopholes to crawl through. Heck, we should at least give the APPEARANCE of taking the high moral ground, and not saying "we can be just as dirty as you".