Navybone

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Yes, Likewise, enough with "guns are evil, only law enforcement and military should have guns (but let's defund the police, reduce our military and ignore the facts evidencing blanket restrictions don't work while we're at it) and I will 'stand with' the families (while I stand on the bodies of their children to signal my virtue)" while it happens again. 

Yes, but... lets also recognize that facts are consistently cherry-picked to make a case for one extreme or the other.   As often attributed to Mark Twain  - “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.”  The 2nd Amendment and the Gun Control groups both use facts that support their position.  This creates a "line in the sand" about any willingness to work together to find a compromise.  And then nothing happens, until the next killing at another school and the cycle repeats.  

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As a former BSA Lifeguard, I can tell you it is 99.98% ARC to the point that the books and videos used in the class was ARC. In fact if you were willing to pay an extra $20 and take the ARC exam, you would be dual certified. the .02% difference was BSA's Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat.

So BSA Lifeguard is not a good example of BSA going their own way.

Actually, it is exactly what I am saying.  Just remove the NRA moniker and official ties to the organizations, but stay aligned with their excellent instruction. 

40 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

1. If guns were the only issue, my hometown, with guns hanging from a rack in the back of every pickup truck and bouncing around in the trunk of many cars, would've had a real problem with mass shootings in the 60's and 70's. Didn't happened and that's a good data point. (This is borne out as a clear trend in the US.) Did I or others typically own a tactical rifle then? No. Do I think it would've made a difference? I don't. I have 8 long guns and two pistols. None has wandered out of the safe or otherwise and committed so much as one crime. I've had the 20 gauge since I was 11 and the BB gun since I was 10.

In response to your comment on mass shootings in the 60's and 70's, have to wonder if part of reason that there were not as many mass shootings (this assessment is based on anecdotal, not any specific research by me) was due to availability of types of weapons used today.  By this I mean, were AR-15 and other weapons  available to the degree they are today?   Listening to NPR this morning, the comment was that while there is no definitive data that shows the Assault weapon ban that ended 2004 (?) reduced mass shootings during the period of the ban, there was definitive day that showed a spiked increase in mass shootings with assault weapons (i.e. those included in the ban) once it was lifted.  I was in the car so cannot tell you who said it, but the suggestion was that there is a relationship between availability of obtaining certain types of weapons.

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Given BSA's partnership with the NRA and the NRA's hardline stance against gun reform it is tough to see BSA as a neutral party.  To be fair though, I am not aware of alternate organizations that provide good gun safety instructor training.  I (as does many scouters) want to see BSA continue shooting sports, so I expect that partnership to continue.

It may be time for the BSA to sever its ties with the NRA.  It would be a shame since the NRA has good gun safety training (it is what I learned so many years ago).  But with the political baggage that comes along with being associated with NRA, this may merit serious consideration. 

There is some precedence.  The BSA has their own lifeguard training.  While the Red Cross training is more well know and accepted, is the BSA Lifeguard training any less an effective training curriculum for being a lifeguard (I have no idea, I had the red cross training when I was a lifeguard)?  BSA could adopt the same principals and approach to gun safety as the NRA curriculum, but drop the NRA implied endorsement.   Not a perfect solution, but may be worth considering. 

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

And not a single upvote.

There has been a ton of angst expressed here for child scouts who were subjected to child sexual abuse, yet for children being MURDERED, not a word.

I stand appalled.

Maybe because your stance is an extreme.  I have plenty of anger about children being killed by guns, but Extremes have gotten us what?   Nothing.  We are a country and a culture that has relied on private ownership of guns.  To believe the answer is no guns is unrealistic.  What we have are cowards in office who offer nothing but extremes ( ban all guns, 2nd Amendment trumps all, etc).  Until we can walk off that, nothing will change.   We are also a nation of compromise, but we seem to have forgotten that. .  It’s not a binary issues - guns or no guns.  My two cents.   

20 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I struggle with responses like this because they don't invite a discussion unless it is one sided. Kind of a type of censorship to me.

Let's have a real discussion.

Barry

 

I purposely stated that the political leadership lacks the ability to do anything.  I do not believe this is a guns only issue, or a mental health issue, or a video game issue.  It is a complex issue that requires adults willing to talk consider all aspects of the issue.  
 

If anything, my comment reflects my frustration with the current approach by leaders in this country to state useless absolutes (ban guns, 2A is sacred…)when it comes to mass killings ( there were 6 today where more than 4 people were killed by gun violence).  It gets us nowhere.  There is no single solution.  This is hard, but hard is ok - that is why they are elected   
 

but not sure why you think I am censoring you.  I am not. 

28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Thank you for your response but I would like to ask you where I advocated censorship? Mental health and how it is dealt with is not a cop out. I have a child who suffers from depression and she feels like not enough resources are there for her in High School.

I would like also to point out that gun violence does not just kill children but also adults. I am sure that many times more adults die from gun violence than children.

You are right.  I read your post soon after reading Congressman Jackson (Tx) comments where he looks to blame music and video games.  It would have been more accurate to say that you could read your comments to imply that you support censorship.   Not that you are supporting censorship. 

apologies for putting words in your mouth   

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Gun control and the second amendment is a touchy subject for all, not just the BSA.

The guns themselves are not the issue rather society as a whole.

There is not enough attention put into mental health for one. More needs to be done to identify those who are more prone to mass violence.  We need to do more for those with mental health issues even if it means more mental health hospitals. 

Violent video games have made more young males prone to glorify the mass deaths that incur within the games and take those glorifications into their own reality.

Certain musical genres glorify violence and death and that has contributed to guns and death.

We have become to liberal towards criminals and prison.  We need laws that have bite in them. Just look at cities like New York and San Francisco where violence and the lack of bite in the laws (sentencing) has made those cities so violent.

We need to teach to young people the value of life. Not just of others but their own lives as well.

I do not have guns in my house and that to me is a personal choice. One because of my own and my daughters depression, but also as my family has had gun violence touch our lives. My brother murdered his wife and subsequently killed himself yet I believe in the second amendment.

I’ll start my response with this, neither political party has the spine or integrity to address this issue, this violence that is killing children.  

If not enough that’s been done about mental health since Columbine, 23 years ago, and not enough since Sandy Hook, 10 years ago, what needs to still be done?  Just saying mental health is not an answer but an handwave to avoid talking about the issue.  It’s a cop-out .

And I am no statistician, but to the facts of murders with guns stand up to scrutiny when competing in liberal state versus conservative?   

Fianlly, do you really think that censorship is the answer, and it is ok so long as it protects the second amendment?  The constitution also used to support the practice of slavery, but the country was smart enough to figure out that that part of the constitution needed to be fixed.  

4 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Just make sure you avoid the real issue...

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/lie-of-diversity/

 

That is one take, not a very useful one, but one none the less.  

Where do we find such men?  I have no doubt that Boy Scouts plays a role in shaping them. 

2 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

Being typed I can't hear the tone of your post. Nor can I judge it's intent by your facial expression.  But sure seems  like a cheap shot at an honest man to me.

Kudos  him for realizing that where he is and where Boy Scouts are going are not in the same place and realizing that it was time for him to go.  That is not a cheap shot.  It is realization that time changes, and that organizations change.   And while his views may be different than mine, it is not intended As a cheap shot.   

5 hours ago, Wyobkr said:

This old timer sent the national key 3 a resignation letter and that leaves a little bit bigger gap in meeting the needs of Scouting, but I can't stomach anymore DEI and still abide by the Scout Law. 

Good for you realizing that you cannot meet the requirements of Boy Scouts and stepping aside.  

We use troop web host for the calendar and sign-up, as well as to help track advancement.  It works well and while I am not involved in this part, it seems to update scoutbook well.   Not too many bells and whistles, but works.

7 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

Just wondering.....how long have you been involved in Scouting,?

As an adult, last 4 years. You

26 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

I'm afraid that after the reorganization the Boy Scouts will be far removed from what it was in the past and even what we see now.  It will be a culturally aware, sexually diverse, universally integrated group where every youth member earns Eagle and every merit badge, in two years.  The merit badges are all earned on line, and preprogrammed automated board of reviews are the standard.   IOLS and Sea Badge are currently virtual, and soon Woodbadge and NYLT will follow suit.  Leadership is demonstrated by online evaluations, and in the name of safeguarding the children, there will be no physical meetings and adult youth contact will be forbidden.  Every time it is suggested that a scout unit have a physical activity, an attorney must be consulted to interpret the rules and insure that they are in place and each unit must be bonded.  Won't that be just grand?

There is nothing, anywhere that suggest that a culturally aware, diverse, integrated scouts will be anything like you say.  Nothing.  Anywhere.  
 

and to your point that scouts is only about kids camping out, this is what scouts mission is: The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.  

51 minutes ago, Mrjeff said:

A fantasy world is achieved when reverse segregation is implemented in an effort to change biases and segregation.  That doesn't even sound right, "let's have a gathering of all red headed men with beards so they will have a voice and be recognized".  Having these separate gatherings clearly sends a message that its just fine for certain groups to practice this and its not just fine for others.  In reality these pore minority groups are more biased and self serving then the majority.   I am braced for the flashback......

There is no flashback.  Your example of red heads is absurd.  Affinity groups, if integrated well into an organization can be very beneficial and successful in developing a culture of inclusion and belonging. It is a longstanding best practice in large organizations.   If you want to have a meeting of only white males, go right ahead.  So long as it has the same goals and structure as other affinity groups within Scouts BSA. 

5 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

The simple fact that a person is a Scout is enough. A Scout is a Scout regardless of race, creed, .......it's just that simple and to have separate venues for certain people builds further exclusion.  If this kind of thing is appropriate for one segment of Scouting it should be acceptable for all.

 

 

While it would be great that just being a scout would be enough, it obviously is not.  Otherwise we would have racism, the sex abuse scandals,, or any other issues.  But we do, so living in a fantasy world simply is not realistic. 
 

maybe you have never been part of an organization where you were in the minority, where you did not have a voice or you were different and it impacted the people you got to know, the roles you could play, the friendships you could make.  That is the service these styles of meetings provide.  They are not secret cabal to take over scouting, or develop a separate set of rules, or anything.  To be honest, if everyone was living up to the scout oath and law, we would not need these meetings for minority groups.  
 

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

So.......in that case inclusion, acceptance and all that goes out the window?  Is it then ok for white straight folks to conduct separate activities allowing them to discuss similar topics?

Of course not.  It is to provide opportunity for minority groups that do not have or not are comfortable when in a large group when they are a minority.  It’s about creating a venue where they have a voice and others like them will be here to meet and talk to.  This BUILDs inclusion and acceptance, or the other way around.  And you know what, I would bet you would you welcome to attend if you wanted.  You want them to feel welcome, right? 

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

One question  for the BSA Chief Diversity Officer (I'd like to see what that patch looks like) and I would really appreciate a straightforward answer.  Since diversity and inclusion has become a hot topic for the BSA, then why, at a nationaln event at a national place,  were there separate events for the LGBTQ folks and another event for people of color?  If they had an event for straight white folks there would have been an uproar heard around the world........what's up with that?

Probably because LGBTQ and people of color are minorities within scouting.  And having an event detonated to allow them to see that they are not alone, discuss or raises issues particulars to them, or identify opportunities that would increase their participation in scouts.  You know, make it more inclusive.  

24 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

The internet is a funny thing, I interpreted the article as a complete joke. The author was trying to be serious, buts a such a wild stretch of an argument. 

unfortunately, way too many people think PJ Media is actual news and believe what it is post on it.  The ability to post anything on the internet without having to ensure that it is true, based on fact or even rhymes with the truth, coupled with such sites only confirming peoples bias is really dangerous.  It has become pervasive and contributed to the political discourd that exists today.

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's in the eyes of the beholder.  ...  This week's huge controversy is whether an upstander is a 17 year old boy that stands up against bullies, intimidation, arson and looting in Kenosha.  Is he your example of "upstander"?  For many he is.  For many he is not.  

More than a little extreme of an example here, no?  There is nothing to imply in anything within the CIS MB that an upstander is someone who goes out of his/her way (like miles) to get into a situation (voluntarily) that requires him/her to use a weapon (that the person brought although they were underage) on someone.  Are we blowing right past the more likely situation where a scout would see/hear something that would put him/her in a position where they may have to call undesired attention to themselves in an effort to stand up for someone else?

I think the discussion is less constructive if we focus on extremes or out-layers rather than reality. 

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

All things aside ... just a verbage issue ... the term Upstander is junk.  Shakespeare would weep.  ... It sounds like a committee met repeatedly to pick a rallying word, but had to pick something.  So, they chose upstander.   

This is not a BSA created term, but one that has been used for years to identify someone who steps up and takes action when they see a wrong.  It draws attention to and differentiates between watching and acting. It calls out and encourages a person to step up and  takes actions despite what others are doing.  For a teen, it can be a challenge to step up against how their peers may be acting, be it in a group or otherwise. 

What is the issue with taking the time and emphasis to help the Scouts understand what "helps other people at all times"?  Knowing what to do is easier for the Scouts when it is something like a medical incident where first aid is required, for example.   But it is much different for a teen to stand up and counter what others are saying, especially if it among their peer group or in  public. The requirement to discuss what it means to stand up for those who need it is a great discussion topic.  For teens, who are looking to fit in with others, there is value in helping them understand why in a situation where no others are standing up to help someone who who is being called out or bullied, it is so important to not simply watch but important to act.  It takes courage, it takes risk on their behalf, and not everyone has that.  Giving a word to describe that courage, that need for intestinal fortitude, gives the Scouts a way to comprehend what they are being asked to do. 

3 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

- Note that there are 5 workforce resource groups.  I guess if you are disabled, indigenous persons, or white you are pretty much not welcomed.  Interesting that the DEI head would support exclusionary and segregated groups within the workforce.  I guess my definition of inclusion must be different

I can't speak to disabled or Indigenous persons, but I find it laughable that you think that there needs to be a white Workforce Resource Group.  The efforts of the Workforce Resource Group are distinctly NOT about exclusionary or segregated groups within the workforce.  In fact, they are the opposite, about providing support for minorities who may not have a resource to help them integrate into a company or corporate culture.  When a majority of the workforce is white, then the structure is already supportive there integration. 

37 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

Didn't say that at all.  What I said is that when and/or if any component of CRT is included in the training or merit badge I'M NOT TOUCHING IT WITH A TEN FOOT POLE.  

Are you saying that you would like CRT incorporated with DEI?

I am not saying that i want CRT incorporated into BSA's DEI effort.  I do not believe that DEI equals CRT.  And it is very capable to have a DEI effort not corrupted by CRT>  They training itself was good in that respect. 

My comment was in response to your "Maybe not yet.  Give it some time", which implies that you think CRT will be incorporated in BSA's DEI.