blw2

33 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Rate of fire on an M1 is 40-50 rounds a minute and as you eluded to, can only carry 8 rounds. AR-15 rate of fire is 90-120 rounds a minute and can carry 30-round magazines.

No way a person with an M1 could be as intentionally lethal as the same person with an AR-15.  The person with the AR can fire 30 rounds before the person with the M1 can fire 9 rounds.

 

all driven by the magazine sizes...nothing more really....

what is the rate of fire for the old Remington 740 rifle I used to hunt with when I was growing up?  It's basically as fast as the trigger can be pulled... considering magazine size though, I'd guess on average similar to an M1 with the standard magazine... I think you could get a 10 or 20 round magazine for it....maybe larger....what would that rate of fire be?....

....regardless, rate of fire has little to do with it if there's nobody there tooled up to stop the nut from reloading....

that idea has been discussed before....almost....shared committees

I do think your example of shared meeting and shared leaders all with one common head has some merit...at least "on paper"

Back when I was CM, our CC was the SM.  Based on his preference, I as CM sat as CC for the troop.

In my experience it "sounded" better on paper than in reality.  It was done in an effort to help open communication between the units, ultimately I think mostly to foster exposure of the troop to the cubs so they would be more likely to join our troop as opposed to the one across the street.

I reality, he was not effective for the pack with no "skin in the game" & I wasn't for the troop.

In the end it didn't last long.  I was effectively the CC and CM for the pack, as well as doing a lot of teh other committee roles....so in the interest of the pack I told the troop that I needed to focus on the pack alone

On 2/23/2018 at 12:06 PM, Col. Flagg said:

From my perspective, it is not the technology that is causing these shootings. Rather the technology is making the body count higher than it would be if the citizenry were allowed their arms, BUT those arms were not military-grade.

I've got my 12- and 20-gauge, a replica 50-cal muzzleloader and a model 700 CDL bolt action. All used for hunting and sport (clays/target). NONE are the type of weapon to cause mass carnage. Such weapons are simply not needed by the citizenry. 

Don't own a handgun. My Gen-X 40# compound will take any intruder down. 

I don't own an AR-15 and have never handled one or anything like it.....don't want to, and really don't understand why anyone else would want to or need to either, (except maybe a military vet in a memorabilia collection)....but i really fail to see how they are any different really than for example an M1 Garand...EXCEPT larger capacity magazines are readily available.   Any person with a magazine fed rifle and multiple clips could do exactly the same thing.  Exactly...

Many hunting rifles are magazine fed and therefore this potential has been readily available and accessible to the public since when?...I don't know but I do know for sure long before I was born...and I'm an old guy. 

I still contend that it's not the hardware, it is something else...and I suspect it's muti layered....but it's not the hardware.

On 2/24/2018 at 10:23 PM, gblotter said:

I read so many threads with very experienced Scouters speaking quite negatively about merit badges and rank advancement. There is so much disparaging talk about Eagle mills and merit badge factories. Focusing on merit badges and the trail to Eagle means you are missing the point of Scouting and not having a quality experience. You are only a true Scout if you are in it for the fun. Some have even advocated for eliminating merit badges classes entirely from troop meetings and summer camp schedules. In the minds of some, advancement seems to be at the root of all that is wrong with Scouting because it introduces a corrupt motivation and becomes a distraction from having fun. This talk never ends here on Scouter.com which leads to me ask ...

How many folks think that eliminating merit badges and rank advancement from the Scouting program would be a good thing? I'm actually not trolling - I'm asking a serious question.

great question I think....and some great responses here too it.

My thought...and this is just an initial thought that I recon' could be developed much further....is that no, I don't for a second think that eliminating the stuff would be a good thing.  I think the whole concept of advancement and achievement is somewhat a core of the program....but the focus in all of it, IMO, should change from an EXTERNALLY driven one to an INTERNAL FOCUS.  Each individual scout should be working on "X" because HE wants to, because he's driven to, for whatever reason is his and on his own pace.

Here's where the thought is still developing in my brain....by EXTERNAL, I think I might mean all the adult/program driven stuff.   They are working on such and such merit badge because that's what some adult is offering to teach....or because that's what the merit badge fair is offering and they are doing it at that time because that's when the MB fair is.... it has little or nothing to do with the scout individually deciding he wants to work on "xyz" now.  I suppose this also extends to scout leader corps too.... they are working on "this" topic in the troop meeting because the PLC chose that....(and that may or may not be something that was steered by an adult)

& I do think as others have posted, that pencil whipping leads to empty reward and the scouts feel it.....and also the explain/discuss stuff can be over used for sure.  That too, can make it all so empty.

Now that he's had some distance and time away from scouts, I think I might ask my son why he was never really interested in the advancement and the patches....  Answers before pretty much explained it...."boring", but I guess I'm not fully understanding what that means to him.

ok, well let's back this whole thought up a bit.... if one is to think that this problem we have changes somehow because of technology....weaponry is more advanced than it was before.... 

why did we not start seeing these mass shootings long ago?

  these things in their more or less current state of design have been around a very long time....the AR-15 variants currently in the news have been available since when, the 1970's maybe?

and going back even further.... an M-1 rifle as an example was state of the art for it's time....military grade, built for killing, capable of rapid fire, and available in mind boggling quantities at cheap prices since the mid 1940's or so....

ditto the Sprigfield rifle and similar, before that.  Again in their day they were state of the art.... and at some point became readily available.  But we didn't have crazy folks using them so much like we do today.

So, how is it that the technology has somehow caused this to start happening now?

My guess.... it's lots of things, many layers....but it's not the technology. 

4 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

I support the 2nd amendment and the rights therein. However, I believe the Founding Fathers would not have meant this right extends to such weaponry as we have now. I own firearms. I own firearms that have a practical purpose such as hunting or defending my family/property. I do NOT own firearms like an AR-15, sniper rifle or anything like that because I believe they have a military purpose.

I think if the Founding Fathers were alive today they would be appalled at the extremes on both sides of this debate. We do need arms and should have them. We don't need arms that can take out a company of citizens in less than 2 minutes.

I'll start by saying I don't personally own any sort of 'AR' and I don't think that anyone really needs one.  I see them as a macho kindof thing.... like owning a pit bull dog when their are much better breeds available.

BUT

I disagree with your statement.  I think it IS EXACTLY what they meant.

Think about the context of what these people had just done.  With privately owned weaponry...muskets mostly that at the time were state of the art.... they overthrew an oppressive power. 

I think they wanted folks to not get themselves into the very same situation that England itself did many years later in the late 1930's....faced a blitzkrieg and very few households guns....and definitely NOT state of the art ones.... on hand to defend their homeland with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Committee_for_the_Defense_of_British_Homes

I tell you what, I think those guys (Founding Fathers, generally) could see into the future and the more I've learned and read about them over the years I'm often amazed by their foresight.  I am very cautious now to ever second guess them....

6 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

Yes Yes - Learning for Life Scouts.  A program with great intentions and really can fit a need.  That being said, it is rife with potential for abuse and membership shenanigans.  These Scouts are 14% of the membership total for BSA (2016 numbers).  The councils and nationals solicit monies for their membership, so in many cases no real cost to the participants.  They may not even know they are involved in Scouts. 

Actually in some cases they did not know because the groups never met and were paper only units.

6 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Is that what he meant or did he mean Scoutreach?  I know our council spends a lot of time on both L4L and Scoutreach vs Venturing.

No, I meant Boy Scouts..... Regular old Boy Scout Troop stuff..... so much classroom type stuff happens and so little adventure.

I meant that what I know about venturing.... youth led groups doing fun stuff.....is what a regular troop SHOULD (IMHO) be doing....

17 hours ago, David CO said:

Unfortunately, it is not realistically possible for a COR to avoid the council altogether. Some council interaction is unavoidable, but it usually takes place behind the scenes, and unit scouters are often unaware of it taking place......

Maybe....but I have serious doubts.  Safe bet our COR has never had interaction except when we track him down to sign something...

17 hours ago, David CO said:

 

The CC should never step in and do the COR's duties.  

No argument there....just like the CM or SM should never do the CC or committee member stuff....etc...

but that aint likely to ever be reality either....

I agree about venturing.... although I honestly have always felt like it's an afterthought spin-off and there's no way around it.... Just fundamentally seems to me that what venturing does really should be what a troop does already.

Anyway, i often figured that "venturing" high adventure and flexibility would go a long way into holding interest more than the classroom that regular scouts has evolved into.....

except it really seems to me that venturing just "works" better in some places rather than others..... in my brain, folks near mountains have more high adventure options.... here in the North Florida flatlands we have some good stuff but more limiting I think....scuba (although for really good diving you still have to travel a long way) , sailing, flat water paddling, and mountain biking.  Things like backpacking around here is mostly on trails that aren't so redeeming and the season is limited....folks near mountains and more northern places can do all of those things + rock climbing, tons of winter sports options, white water paddling, and all sorts of great backpacking and camping options summer and winter

The NRA a terrorist organization?  Seriously???  I missed that comment.

LOL ....about as much as the BSA in my estimation.

I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that the COR shouldn't attend meetings.

    That's like saying that a Congressman shouldn't be aware of what's going on with his constituents.....hey, wait a minute...bad analogy

I'd think they should be at Committee meetings often...maybe not every meeting, but most....and at least a few unit meetings now and then to get a pulse on what's going on....

Regardless....all theoretical in my experience.

On another note.... what percentage of COR's do you think actually meet at the district or council level....let's say at least one meeting a year?  My guess it's a low fraction.

I'd be surprised if the district would...but not terribly surprised if you found another unit willing to help....although I can't imagine that being overly convenient.

OH, i remembered the other thing the pack had to store.... a couple rain gutters I bought and donated to the pack for a simple regatta pack meeting.  I wonder if they were ever used again??  That was a loud and high energy pack meeting  

Everything else we had lived in the small pack trailer.

I'm still struggling to think of much that the troop has to store out of the trailer.  The only thing I can think of is the troop flag and the log that has holes drilled to hold candles for their COH.  I never understood the scouts liking that ceremony...I suspect it was mom invented, and mom encouraged.

Our CO had a large shed with shelf space. Scouts had one small section.... and it seemed like other ministries (Knights, Men's Club, etc...) would often encroach.

But honestly, the pack only had a pinewood derby track and a few other things...not much....  As CM I found a small pack in need for our old unused wooden track and got that out of there

and the troop had some junk that was never used anyway.  I think a year or two ago most all of it was culled.

I think pretty much everything lives in the trailer now.

The difference I think might be that we don't have a lot in the way of unit owned personal gear to store (troop maintains a spare tent or two, and a couple emergency sleeping bags in the trailer) but scouts bring their own tents and sleep systems and personal gear.  Room in the trailer to haul it.  The troop maintains Camp Kitchen boxes for each patrol, some lanterns and LP tanks, ezup awnings, first aid kit, etc...

3 hours ago, David CO said:

It is obvious that you do not understand the role of the COR. 

well, you're right that I've never seen it done or attempted...

....but let's see... a few random bullet points from the first few pages of the BSA's COR handbook

1. help their unit be successful
2. help coordination between scouting (the unit/council) and the CO
3. be a voting member in district and council (I would assume that means to represent the CO and The CO's unit)
4. help recruit unit leaders (and this would also involve knowing when a key leader needs to be replaced)
5. Assist with recharter
6. suggest good turns to your unit
7. promote well planned programs
8. bring in district help
9. coordinate with other units in your area
10. cultivate resources to help your units

Pretty much all of these things would require a working knowledge of the unit and the CO. 

Which of these would imply that the COR shouldn't attend at least some of the meetings and activities to see what's going on?

I get that the COR is a voting member in the district or council....so in that way you need ONE representing the CO

My bigger point was that the BSA should be more mindful than they seem to be of the sacrifice of time that it requests from it's volunteers....and from the charter orgs too!

I never really thought about this...as our COR, not once in my years with the pack and troop ever showed up to a single meeting that I attended...committee or otherwise.  I never personally have ever spoken to the man.

BUT

If I were appointed COR for a unit, I'd pretty much insist on doing just one unit, and I'd tell BSA to take a hike on any such rule.  I say this because I'd like to think that as COR I'd try to attend at least a majority of the committee meetings, and at least some of the troop meetings and events....I'd recon that to be at least maybe 1-3 meetings per month.  That would be double the meetings if I were doing a troop + pack....and triple if there was also a crew.  No thanks

Not illegal drugs, but how many of these shooters have been on SSRI meds?

I wonder also about ADD meds too....?

....either current use or in the past.

those are awesome!  how I think it should be in a perfect world.  Talk about taking patrol spirit and troop pride to another level.....I'd add that the patrol leaders should all have keys to the place so the patrols can have meetings on their own time.... keeping the adults "out of it".  A real scout hut club house!

Meanwhile, my troop as a boy, was much like the Troop I volunteered for.  We fought every other ministry in the church, along with wedding receptions and the rest, for space in the parish hall or the school cafeteria....  No regular place even to store the troop's flag.... we'd have to look for it every time to find which corner or closet it got squirreled into....

curious about those examples.... who charters these troops?  who owns the building and land for these troops to have such an awesome set-up?

3 hours ago, Back Pack said:

...... but I couldn’t see making a special trip to disney. That’s not really what scouts is about. .....

I'm not so sure I totally agree.  I think scouts is about a group of friends, usually 6-8 of them, getting together to do fun stuff together as a patrol.  In the process they practice leadership, learn skills, and all sorts of stuff.  Sure, the 'game' of scouts is outdoor oriented but isn't that only because the idea is that boys get so much good out of being outside?

Sure it wouldn't count towards nights camped, it probably shouldn't  be encouraged as a regular thing....but I'd liken it to a patrol getting together for a game of basketball at the scout hut. 

A special event, fun, leaders lead, .....

My wife had CBS Sunday Morning on yesterday evening (recorded on Tivo)

They had a nice bit on Boy Scouts going Coed.  Showed the GSUSA's reaction, interview with their CEO.  Interview with Michael Surbaugh....Came across as a nice guy, but boy, that guy seems out of touch to me when it comes to the reason for the decline.  I'll say it again, the BSA needs a real outdoor guy at the helm, not a CEO boardroom type...like a Bear Grylls adventure guy

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/boy-scouts-of-america-girls-now-admitted/

Watch out, don't get them too far advanced...

I often thought that the webelos scouts would have more fun if something like this were done.

When I was CM I tried to encourage it a bit, and I leaned on the Webelos some furring pack meetings as leaders.... they would help keep things organized, pick teams for games, stuff like that....

I would have liked to have even done way more at the den level then we did, in making it into a patrol rather than a den....patrol spirit, patrol yell, picking what they want to do, etc...

BUT

fast forward to after about a year after my son joined the troop.  I was seeing serious signs of boredom....and we really didn't even do all that much at the den level.  The troops might be set up less advanced in the patrol method than even you do now, and that could be a set-up for let-down and disappointment...

also with cubs, we did Patriots Point...great trip, slept under the space shuttle at Kennedy Space Center, slept under the Whale tank at Sea World...

there are lots of great options for scout groups that aren't "camping".  Those were our most popular things in the Cub days....

I don't really see the night as a hindrance at all.... we did it at night in the cub scouts....although that was a very simple level....

Still, I think the darkness reduces the chances of sneaking with the eyeball to find a small waypoint marker.

When i was searching for it back for the cubs, I found lots of really great ideas for scavenger hunt type things using a compass..... the clues for the next waypoint would be hidden at the waypoint you're trying to find like in a baloon....but there would be lots of decoy balloons with bad clues inside so you couldn't just find it by eye.  For the cubs, I believe we just used a small marker, like a coin I think....

Lots of great ideas out there.

We are easy driving distance form there...about 2-1/2 hours.  Our pack used to go camp at Fort Wilderness every year or two.  Good family camping there, since we were close and it's palatable for many new families....clean bathhouses and such...  But that was all family camping stuff. 

On 2/10/2018 at 11:56 PM, TAHAWK said:

 

“ ‘[T]he Patrol System is not one method in which Scouting for boys can be carried out, but it is the only method. . . . ’”

        B.S.A., The Patrol Method (1930)

“The patrol method isn’t one way to run a troop. It’s the only way.”

 

           B.S.A., Scouting.org   (2014)

 

"Unless the patrol method is in  operation, you don't really have a Boy Scout Troop

 

         B.S.A., Scouting.org (citing Baden-Powell) (09/2015)

 

"Scouting happens in the context of a patrol"

 

        B.S.S., Scoutmaster Position Specific Training (syllabus 2018)

[to the Scout:] "Your boy scout troop is made up of patrols, with each patrol's members sharing responsibility for the patrol's success

        B.S.A., The Boy Scout Handbook, 13th [curren] 'Ed. at p. 25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These points, I wish were burned into every scouter with every required training that they take.  they should be dissected and analyzed thoroughly during every IOLS, and probably ILST too, as long as we are making the scouts sit through that....

Jackdaws, Is that Echokotee by chance?  If so, I've sang on that stage...my apologies to anyone in earshot...which was quite a few since I tried to sing loudly....