DeanRx

Broken the oath and broken the law = no Eagle.... Hmmm, yeah...

 

How many adult leaders have ever driven 5 mph over the speed limit on a scout outing? BROKEN THE LAW

How many adult leaders have ever padded their charitiable contribution on their tax return? BROKEN THE LAW

How many adult leaders have gone out in a non-scouting funciton and had a little too much to drink, or used bad language, or smoked, or had sex with someone prior to marriage? BROKEN YOUR OATH

 

Before we as adults begin to throw the hypothetical stones at a scout, we better get our own houses in order folks!

 

Just because you make a mistake in life, it doesn't disqualify you from being a good person. It doesn't disqualify you from grace. It certainly shouldn't disqualify you from being an Eagle scout as a lad.

How exactly does it happening at a scout function make it different? Are scouts to be held to a higher standard ONLY when at a function or ONLY when in uniform? I agree there are certain things that can be done as a scouter outside of a scout function (like going out for beer - as an adult, OK to do... as an adult in a scout uniform, not so much).

However, is our expectation that a youth check his true self at the door? Do we expect these guys not to get into any trouble at ALL growing up? One of the main points for having my son in scouts is to give him a good environment (free from drug and alcohol use, free from bad language, etc..) - BUT, I also realize that he and his friends are all impulsive male creatures between the ages of 12 and 18. They screw up. They are impulsive, they do stupid crap. That is part of the learning curve.

The only time I can see a complete ban from the troop for a lad is IF he is a danger to other scouts and to safety. If the kid is smoking on his own, while not a good example and against the law - he is not really a danger to others. Get the kid some help, but be his community he can return to - if you are not, then he will choose another to associate with.

In my short time as a leader, I have found that most youth (even the older ones) will live up to the brand you give them... label this kid a doper and a looser and that is what he will likely see in himself and will continue to become in life.

Broken the oath and broken the law = no Eagle.... Hmmm, yeah...

How many adult leaders have ever driven 5 mph over the speed limit on a scout outing? BROKEN THE LAW

How many adult leaders have ever padded their charitiable contribution on their tax return? BROKEN THE LAW

How many adult leaders have gone out in a non-scouting funciton and had a little too much to drink, or used bad language, or smoked, or had sex with someone prior to marriage? BROKEN YOUR OATH

Before we as adults begin to throw the hypothetical stones at a scout, we better get our own houses in order folks!

Just because you make a mistake in life, it doesn't disqualify you from being a good person. It doesn't disqualify you from grace. It certainly shouldn't disqualify you from being an Eagle scout as a lad.

I think the best approach is to interview the two other kids. Let them know they do not have the option of not being involved. They may choose not to remember much, but at least as adult leaders, you have done your due dilligence.

As to whether this should disqualify the lad from receiving his Eagle award, Hmmm... thats a tough one. Would it be hypocritical for a pot-smoker to get Eagle? Probably. Would it be hypocritical to not allow a lad a second chance if he made a genuine appology for his actions? Definately.

We as scouters sometimes are very quick to forget that we are dealing with YOUTH. For the most part, good youth, but young men just the same. Young men change, they expiriment, they test limits. Johnny goodie toe shoes one day, the next cussing like a sailor on shore leave. One day not interested in girls, the next trying to get to second base with the first girlfriend they have.

I'm inclined to say that Eagle being off the table has a lot more to do with HOW the scout conducts himself AFTER being confronted for his alleged actions. Is he defiant? Is he contrite in the face of multiple whitnesses? Does he cop to doing the deed and say he's sorry, It won't happen again? Does he self refer to a treatment porgram? All of those outcomes bear greatly on whether a group of adults should stand in the way of an achievement this lad has worked towards for the last 3 to 5 years (maybe more).

I agree we need to have standards and drug use has no place in scouting or on a campout. However, one of our standards should also be forgiveness and the ability of someone to have a chance to LEARN from their mistakes.

You drop the Eagle and kick him out of the troop. All you've taught the boy is, "You can only trust these folks as long as you behave by their standards... if you slip, they'll cut you off at the knees..... don't trust anyone in life.... just don't get caught." Are those the life lessons we really want this boy to leave scouting with?

On top of all this - we are assuming the kid really did these things. I know its hard to wrap our heads around, but there is a chance (albeit very slim) that a couple boys don't like this guy and could come up with a collaborated story to get him in trouble / kicked out. Kids can be very devious that way too.

The local leaders know the kids involved best and they know the reputation of those involved.

When making their decission, the adult needs to be less concerned about what others think of HIM and more concerned about what is in the best interest of the boy affected and the rest of the boys in the troop.

Dean

Yeah, so what if its about money... BSA is a business. They have to stay fiscally solvent. If the majority of their big time donors have decided that their anti-gay membership policy needs to change, then it will change. Go ahead and try to put together an anti-boycott. The majority of Americans and the majority of American businesses DISAGREE with this stance. History and time has shown and will continue to show BSA to be on the wrong side of this issue. Those that wish for BSA to continue to die on this hill for this issue are really wishing for BSA to just die a slow death.

Eventually, BSA will loose enough clout and membership and it will cease to be a dominate youth organization in the USA. An interesting note, scouting in general (to include the UK - the real birthplace of scouting in the world) has not had this policy for the last couple DECADES. The US is so far behind the times regarding this issue compared to the rest of the world it is almost laughable, if it didn't continue to do so much damage financially and PR wise to scouting in the US.

Dean

This was the WORST thing they could have done ! Who exactly are they getting more input from? As a registered leader for the past 7 years, I have never, not once been asked to give my input - fill out an online survey regarding this issue, etc... but they have no problem getting ahold of me for a FOS donation every year!

Where is the national meeting in May? Do local councils have a delegation that will attend? Can I send my vote in with the delegation, or is there a place at the national website or a ph number where volunteers can make their voices heard? If so, I haven't seen any...

So I call Bull **** on the idea of, "we need more time for more input from our members". Just who are they asking? Certainly no local unit leaders that I know of...

National - leaders you are NOT. I don't know who the hell is in charge of PR in Irving, but they (as well as the CSE) should loose their job due to the mishandling of this non-announcement. Either piss or get off the pot! Don't tell the public and your underlings there will be a decision and then decide not to decide. What a crock!

You think gays in the ranks goes against a "core belief". What about honesty, standing by your word? What about weighing the facts / consequences and making a tough decision, even when you know it might upset either side of the issue? Is this not the type of LEADERSHIP we are attempting to instill in the youth we serve? Is this not a "core value" as well?

I guess some "core values" are more important than others... the ones about where grown men stick their penis to gain sexual gratification seem to be the MOST important to BSA national. Certainly more important than being honest, forthright, dependable, leaders. More important than being a 'man of your word'.

No one held a gun to their heads and said they had to have a resolution announced today.... they did that to themselves!

Once again - BSA looks a fool in the face of a cynical buying public. And we wonder and wring our hands about WHY there is continued decline in enrollment. This baby needs to be put to bed for good. I know which way I personally would like the decision to fall - but more than that... I want it to be finished. I want to be able to discuss with scouts and parents what the next unit activity will be, what the next service project will be. Not if or when or what some stuffed shirts in TX are going to decide (or fail to decide) regarding an issue that has little to no bearing on the day-to-day activities of my scout's unit.

Very few times in my life I have felt disgusted because I was a member of BSA... today, I am disgusted by the organization I serve.

Dean

The couple things I really do not understand on either side of this issue:

1) Why do so many folks see it as either pro-gay or bigoted?

I don't endorse or condone the lifestyle. In fact, my personal beliefs state it is a sin and is morally wrong. HOWEVER, I also view intolerance and prejudice as sinful. As humans, we all have sins, smoke, cheat, drink, gluttony, gossip, etc... we don't explicitly throw the human (adult vol. or scout) out because of ANY of these things, except sexual preference?

To have local option is BSA in effect stating, "hate the sin, not the sinner" - and if its that big a deal to you... go find a unit who's 'values' align the same as yours and be a member there.

Tolerance is NOT an endorsement or advocation of the lifestyle, IMHO.

2) WHY would BSA just kick the can to the local CO with regards to lawsuits and picketing / etc? If the CO is a religious organization - well, they are more protected legally than the BSA national is in regards to being a private organization with private membership requirements. The supreme court has already rules on that.

As for demonstrators, or picketing, or Op-Ed pieces in a paper... they could be doing that right now at the local unit level! What makes you think they will begin once BSA national policy moves to a more central position from where it has been in the past? That makes no sense... BSA moves closer to acceptance, so those in the LGBT community would then intensify their public outcry?

3) The only real issue I see is in the logistics of unit camping. This can be handled on a case by case basis with the youth and adult leaders involved. Being homosexual is one part of a personality. We have youth currently who like to bunk together because their personalities mesh, and we have some we cannot put together because their personalities clash. When in doubt, a scout ALWAYS has the option of tenting alone (or just sleeping out under the stars - as has become the fashion lately in my son's troop).

The only other issue I can really see coming up - is the male youth in a crew / post that wants to declare their homosexuality in order to use it as justification to tent / shower with the females in the unit... Hey, I'd use that approach when I was 15 if I thought it stood a chance.

Bottom line - I respect folk's conviction on the issue. If it is that big an issue, then you and your son would have a decision to make IF their unit's local option stance is in conflict with your personal belief system. You can either dislike and abide by it, or you can change to a unit that aligns with your personal belief.

Otherwise, its really going to be a non-issue in most units, IMHO.

I don't honestly think it will be cause for a huge influx or exodous in membership numbers either way. Time will tell.

Dean

Basement-

I understand your position on the issue... However, what we are really talking about is how best to avoid mass shooting int he future, right? I'm not sure how you make a dent without having mental health at the forefront (even more so than firearms restrictions).

Its a sick comment on society, but we really don't CARE or really think we can do anything about gun violence with regards to drug trade, domestic violence, or suicide, do we? I sure don't.

My main concern is we establish plans on how best to avoid someone taking out a bus-load of children along with themselves when they decide to go out in a "blaze of glory". So how do you do that?

1) Make hard targets. Do a better job with physical security and 'shelter in place' in ALL public places, especially schools.

2) Set up ways to ID and intervene with potential nut-jobs BEFORE they build up their stock-pile and their plan. (we aren't doing ANY of this right now... haven't heard any talk of it either from ANYONE at the national level on either side of the debate)

3) Reasonable background checks and close loopholes to stop purchases by folks who (by law) should not be allowed to purchase.

4) Train, train, train... responsible ownership. Sandy Hook happened for ONE reason only. A person (who has paid with their life) thought it was OK to combine her weapons cache (obviously not correctly secured - or the kid had access) with a mentally handicapped man-child living with her.

5) Look at ways to avoid desensitization of our youth towards violence. You could wrtie pages ont his one alone.

I don't know HOW you can have a rational discussion on the topic without acknowledging that mental health intervention and responsible ownership are not the two largest issues at hand? You can debate all day what those two steps should look like, but these with physical security are the best chance we have at not seeing a repeat incident.

As for Beavah - I honestly don't know WHY someone with the means should not be allowed to buy a tank or a joint strike force aircraft in this country. If you can afford it, you have no legal barrier to purchasing it (i.e. convicted of a felony. etc...), adn you can safely maintain it and keep comman and control of it... it should be on the open market. I've never understood WHY its OK for our government to be able to sell these types of things to other countries governments, yet keep them from its own citizens? If Bill Gates wants an F-15, who are we to say he can't have it?

At the time the constitution was inacted - the founding fathers certainly envisioned citizens owning and operating the same muskets and cannons that were availible to governmental armies. The right to bear arms has been diluted since day one, IMHO.

Dean

I don't think it is a problem with regards to G2SS. As long as its billed as a "family camp". The only restriction I know of for cub camping is any long term camp (i.e. resident camp) that is longer than 72hrs. But if the parent is along...

One big pain in the hind parts -

National will require you to have a complete health form (long form - to include complete physical) that is less than 1 year old for EVERYONE that goes on the trip, b/c its greater than 72 hours. That means dads, moms, siblings... la de dadee everybody!!

I have a hard time getting family members to turn in short form medical forms for weekend family camps and those do NOT have to be signed off by a doctor (or other practitioner).

I'd say get started early on this part. That and I assume you are travelling from AZ to do this? The long form health form and the national tour permit will be the two largest paperwork hurdles you face.

Good luck and have fun.

Dean

Beavah,

We are probably closer together than we are apart on most of the issues.

I'm all for training - mandatory.

As for the zero-tolerance issue... well, I guess I just feel we need some stronger teeth in the brandish a weapon in the act of a crime department. Most criminals KNOW what they are doing. They are using the firearm to intimidate a victim into doing what they want. I have friends that have been robbed, I have been robbed... without showing me his weapon, I would have probably told the thug to F-off and ran away instead of handing over my wallet.

As for persoanl liberty for the mentally ill. Well, if we are going to go down the road of imposing restrictions on people's freedoms and liberty, I'm more in favor of doing it to someone who has SHOWN to be violent or have violent tendancies, or at least threaten violence. The fact that they may or may not have the mental capacity to KNOW the difference is not of as much concern to me, frankly. That's a better option that is a result of THEIR own ACTIONS. Instead of restricting everyone's rights and liberty because of the actions of OTHERS.

James Holmes had at least three interventions with mental health officals PRIOR to his shooting spree in Aurora. It was severe enough mental illness to remove him from the Univ. of Colorado - Denver and have his campus access restricted? Hmm, poster child for someone who needed his personal liberty infringed to protect the greater public.

Maybe a mandatory reporting requirement would have helped? I don't know.

To me, one of the most troubling aspects in all these shootings (aside from the horrendous act itself) is the fact that so many times, an opportunity to intervene earlier was either missed, or not identified, or simply overlooked as "not my problem to deal with". UC-Denver certainly thought so... this guy was too dangerous to be on campus, but they didn't alert police or think he might be a threat off campus?

The shooter in AZ - father has gone on record stating he tried to get his son committed, but couldn't do so because he was an "adult". There's some strong circumstantial stuff out regarding Adam Lanza that his brother might have known something was up PRIOR to the shooting... time will tell if that data is made availible. However, the initial reports were that there was some type of communication between the shooter and his brother, or at least confusion as to whether his brother was involved. Suspect that won't be known until after the final investigation report is complete.

Bottom line - these time bombs do not tick in a vaccum. There are people around them that KNOW something is very seriously WRONG. If we are going to infringe on anyone personal liberty, that is where we should begin. Not with a cart blanche move against every stable, law abiding citizen's rights.

Dean

yeah good for them... they stood up for what they think is the right thing to do... then point folks in the right direction to complain if they don't like the change.

While I do NOT agree with national's current membership policy, you have to be willing to live by the brand that you buy into.

Its not like I can go and buy a McDonald's fanchise and then be surprised when MCD international tells me I can't be selling Whoppers on my local menu...

An 'A' for effort, but a better approach is to try to change the organization internally. Glad they didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Dean

My solutions:

FIREARM RESTRICTIONS

1) You want a background check - fine.

2) You want a mental health eval - fine, more revenue generation for my profession... this would just result in a doctor shopping expirience for the MD that will give you a "Go" on the eval. What is the end result... sue the doctor that gives a pass to the individual that later commits a gun crime?

3) You want to restrict by type of gun or by magazine style / size... well good luck getting the gun ban through congress, it is political posturing. The magazine / rounds limit is a red herring at best.

4) You want to register all firearms - no way... registration is one step away from confiscation, besides those with criminal intent won't register anyways... it only keeps honest people honest and subjects them to infringement by their own government.

5) Some, if not most of the EO's signed by Obama are probably OK - they really don't do much but close some of the background check loopholes that should not have existed in the first place.

6) Tougher laws for crimes committed with a firearm - I'm all for it. One of the problems we have with gun violence in the US is the fact that first offenses where a gun is displayed or brandished, but not discharged in the commission of a crime are relatively light. If you faced an attempted murder charge just for possession of a firearm in the committing of a crime... might make a difference, maybe not.

MENTAL HEALTH CARE - this is where the potential for greatest impact lies, yet no one wants to discuss it...

1) What do ALL (not most, but every single one) of the mass shooters in the US have in common? Mental health issues! They don't all use the same gun, they don't all choose the same venue, but after the fact - there is at least one (and in most cases - SEVERAL) people who ID the shooter as being mentally unstable with a proclivity towards violence. Yet, we as a society do NOTHING about it.

2) Make it easier (or at least possible) to have people with severe mental disabilities and a violent tendency committed against their will by family members or health care professionals. This used to happen. It is now viewed as cruel and most folks who really need to be in a controlled environment institution are mainstreamed into society. Plus it costs $$ that most benefit managers (read insurance companies) do NOT want to spend... they'd rather

3) ID via family, healthcare workers, and law enforcement those with mental health issues that show a predisposition towards violence - AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT !!! If any research is done into the mass shooters in the US, most will be found to have had more 'minor' incidents of violent outbursts / acts PRIOR to the 'grand event'. We need to ID these folks and intervene BEFORE the episodes escalate.

4) We need to STOP the notion that once someone is given a diagnosis, it absolves them from personal responsibility. I see this ALL THE TIME in practice... Johnny can't help it, he's ADHD. Mary can't help it, she has personality affective disorder. Yeah, OK - maybe they really do - but it does NOT give them free range to act like a savage in society! Way too many parents get a diagnosis, then its an attitude of "Well, my child has been diagnosed X,Y,Z... its not their fault... there is nothing we can do about it..."

Here's a clue - From what we know (which is very little) Adam Lanza's mother had to QUIT her job to stay home and basically babysit her 20-something son because he couldn't function on his own. He is obviously bigger and stronger than his mother, but she (nor anybody else in a position to do something about it) thought it was a bad idea to have the living arrangement they had - with an arsenal of firearms in the house to boot! No matter of legislation is going to overcome piss poor judgement on the part of parents.

PHYSICAL SECURITY FOR PUBLIC AREAS - this is a tricky one...

1) I don't think armed guards in schools are a good idea or would help. I don't think armed pilots or TSA agents on board flights have done much either... but no data is availible - so how do we know?

2) Sinlge entry point and exit point for schools during the day - good idea. Need a double lock door system (i.e. one going into the school office - one going from office out into the school) where if one door is open, the other must be shut and locked. The front office staff at Sandy Hook would still be victims, but it might have stopped the gunman from accessing the remainder of the school. I think this is a very good idea... and can be implemented in most schools with minimal fiscal impact.

3) A deadbolt lock internal on ALL classroom doors. Once an alarm is sounded - all classrooms are locked and students 'shelter in place'. Most victims are targets of opportunity - so making a "harder target" should be the first priority. Again a pretty simple, cost effective solution that will do a LOT to deter the types of mass killing we are trying to avoid. Same thing with Theaters or places where other large crowds gather... fire safety doors must be on buildings, but if there was an alarm to alert the building manager that a door had been proped open... might have been a different outcome. Much better than armed citizens shooting it out in a crowded room, eh?

CHANGE THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS VIOLENCE - not sure what role this plays, or how best to go about it... but it couldn't hurt.

1) We need to stop glorifying violence in media. I fear that ship has sailed and I'm not sure what impact it has on desensitization of youth, but its worth a try...

2) Why is it the MPAA looks more sternly on movies that show a naked human form or a scene depicting sex, than one showing a human being violently killed or dismembered? My personal view is our puritian values, mixed with our gun culture have this viewpoint backwards... how is sex worse than killing in the media?

Sorry for the long post, but the furry lawyer asked what I would do... well this is it. Will it stop the next Columbine or Sandy Hook? I don't know. I wish there was some magic solution that if we just did that - we would KNOW it would never happen again.

The truth of the matter is - bad people will always find access to firearms and attempt to do harm. The best way to prevent this is to make ourselves a hard target, and second to meet the evil with weapons with good people with weapons...

As for NASCAR... I'm not even a fan Acco40

Beavah writes..

"Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare?

This is a staple of modern American political rhetoric, particularly among less-well-educated rural folk of the former Confederate states. In a lot of cases it's unsophisticated folks being taken advantage of by political operatives who know what works best to generate donations. Yah, some people really do believe it, though I reckon it's more that they get caught up in da emotion and self-righteousness of the argument rather than actually have that as an intellectual belief.

That having been said, there is a long tradition of fringe apocalypticism in evangelical Christian groups in America. We have groups predictin' da end of da world or da end of da nation on an ongoing basis. Some apocalyptic literature (like the "Left Behind" series) is quite popular, and an over-emphasis on da Book of Revelation is common in many of da evangelical churches. Again, particularly in da states of da former Confederacy, extending west to "survivalist" types who hide out in da eastern Rockies.

Yeh have to add to that long-standin' cultural phenomenon modern economics. Da reality here in America is that small-town rural farm communities are dying. Modern mechanized agriculture means that the demand for farm labor is less than ever, so da population move to urban/suburban areas has accelerated. Even our traditional farm belt states like Nebraska have crossed da threshold where a majority of the population now lives in urban centers. So for older folks in da small-town farm belt, and for others in places like coal mining districts, this really does feel apocalyptic, eh? They feel like da America they knew is being slowly eroded and goin' away. That's leadin' to a lot of fear, and a lot of blaming of centralized "government" (or illegal immigrants, or...) that is takin' their America away."

While I sometimes agree (often) and sometimes disagree (less often) with the furry lawyer, this has got to be one of the most offensive and prejudiced things I have ever seen you post!

To suggest that the fear of a tyranical federal government rests solely with the rural, un-educated, "hillbillies" is hogwash!

Look at where the majority of gun crime is - the URBAN CORE.

As for those who fear the federal government overstepping their bounds... its a bi-partisan problem that began shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

1) Patriot act... you don't need a lawyer, you don't get a say or a day in court... government defines you as a 'terrorist' and they can hold you indefinately. Not saying this is currently happening to US citizens, but its on the books as an option.

2) TSA / shoe bomber scare... now we all get to sniff each other's toe jam at the airport because of ONE guy... no big bottles of liquid through the screening areas either... wire and e-mail taps / etc... these are NOT fiction, the law is on the books... all in the name of making the public "safer".

3) Now its gun control. well, not ALL guns... just the big bad mean ones. We could get rid of all of them, or a few. We can make folks register all of them so we know where they are at... all this does is erode your personal freedom in the name of "safety".

4) The largest expansion of govermental agencies and power (via 'Homeland Security') since the end of WWII. Your federal government is bigger and badder currently than it has EVER been in the history of our democratic expiriment.

5) Its one thing to have the government advise or recommend you do something and another for it to TELL you... one of the most staunch gun-control advocates in the country already sees no problem in TELLING the citizens of his city what size of SOFT DRINK they may purchase !!! At what point do we stop being a 'free' society? What are the tools at our disposal to ensure we ALWAYS have the ability to make the CHOICE ourselves?

Can the goverment overstep its bounds and run amok in an Orweillian nightmare? Yup, it can... some argue it already has. It happened to a democracy in Europe in the 1930's... we got Hitler and WWII out of that deal. He was ELECTED and overwhelmingly popular at the outset... then he took away the guns... then he started telling everyone what they could or could not do. That is not fearmongerring - it is historical fact. He did so under the guise of "protecting the children".

See a common theme here? I am amazed at both the violence I have been witness to in my life thusfar, both at the hands of terrorists, at the hands of our government in wars that have lasted decades without being declared, and mostly the violence committed against innocents in mass killings in my own country.

I am also amazed at how quick and willing a large portion (maybe a majority / maybe not) is to abandon their personal freedom and liberty to their government all in the guise of being "safer" for the masses. This happens with the urban, the rural, the un-educated and those with post-doctorate degrees.

Gun control comes down to one simple question:

Who do YOU trust with your best interest / safety? Yourself and your neighbors, or the government (local, state, or federal)?

Those that favor strict gun control cannot fathom the day the government would not act in their best interest. Those that favor personal freedom and liberty view the government as acting to keep the populace "in line", not acting in their best interest.

There are a LOT of comparisons between the right to vote, or the right to free speech and the right to bear arms. While some are correct to point out that the right to vote or free speech does NOT kill our citizens, I would argue that without the 2nd ammendment, the government is free to revoke every other right at their will.

I live in a major metropolitan city. I have a doctorate degree. While I feel older everyday, I am not yet what you would consider "old" and out of touch. I am certainly not an isolationist, or a doomsday prepper. I have never lived in the south (unless you count Southern California as part of the Confederate states). To lump those who might view the issue the same as I into this narrow group, just to dismiss the agrument I make is irresposible. I am not a wack job anymore than Beavah is...

Not sure WHY this is the justification on the gun-control side most often used to dismiss the legitimate concerns of the pro-gun side? Other than they do NOT have a rational response to those who feel their government is continually encroaching on their personal liberty... so the scapegoat is to label the opposing view as irrational, unintelligent, fearmongering.

If ANY of the current proposals would do anything to curb gun violence, I'd be all for it. You want a background check on ALL transactions - GREAT. You want a mental health screen? - GREAT. Anything above and beyond that is either a red herring, or an infringement upon MY personal freedom. I don't get offended very easily, but advocating for the demise of my persoanl freedom and then attempting to label me insensitive to the killing of innocents because I stand up for my freedom is very offensive, IMHO!

I think the EO signed that calls for the collection of data and study of gun violence is a good thing. I agree, without data - its very hard to formulate solutions that will truely have an effective outcome on the issue(s) at hand. There is common ground to be had. However, its very difficult to reach when all both sides what to do is dismiss the other side as irrational or unintelligent.

The issue is far too complex to solve it with a unilateral ban on one type of firearm, one type / size of magizine, etc...

Eagledad writes:

">>Clearly the BSA has become more conservative and National much more autocratic than in my days in scouting.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the rap music... I guess I lump that in with "media" in general. I would say any music that glorifies or attempts to entice voilence via the lyrics. Maybe rap does this more than other genres... I don't know.

Dean

"Anyway, when do you consider someone being a bit too... intense in Scouting?"

My barometer has always been if and when it stops being about the boys, then the scouter is being too intense in scouting.

This really moves it to an examination of motivation for me. Woodbadge can be great or it can be crap... it really depends on the reasons WHY someone takes it. Are they motivated because it will help them deliver a better program for the youth? If so, then fine. If the motivation is to punch a ticket and get their wobble "bling" so they can "outrank" some other adult at the round table, well... then I'd probably say their a bit too intense.

I'm all for safety and having paperwork in order... but when that becomes the focus over and above the youth learning some new scout skills and having a good time... well then its probably too intense.

Its a balancing act that even the best scouter needs to walk. I got approached by a mom at our last troop meeting (as the boys were meal planning for the up coming campout). Mom was concerned about the menu her son's patrol had come up with. Not much of a challenge, but all the meals still had to be cooked. She didn't like the fact they had planned instant oatmeal for two breakfasts in a row. I called the SPL over and asked him if he had approved (or at least looked at) this patrol's meal plan. SPL replies to me (in front of the mom), "Well, yeah, its kinda weak, but its better than the two breakfasts of pop-tarts they had down originally..." I just smiled and shrugged my shoulders at the mom... Oh the joys of a boy-led program, eh?

I chalk micro managing a patrol menu up as too intense, mom sees at as being a concerned parent. SPL had already found the happy medium before the issue was even brought to my attention.

Dean

My only real issue with the 23 EO's signed yesterday by the President is that they don't really accomplish anything. By his own admission, congress would have to act (like they ever do anything together) to pass the big 3 things that MIGHT (not would , but might) have an impact. #1 - better background checks... this one makes the most sense and has the strongest chance of getting through congress... probably makes sense. #2 Limit high capacity mags... well - I can shoot a 10 rounder, drop it and have the second one locked and loaded within 2 seconds last time I was timed at the range with the M-16a2 when I was on active duty... tape 3 of those together, you got your 30 round mag... its a red herring issue IMHO. #3 - "assult weapon" ban... Hmm OK, I don't think this one will get through congress with or without the NRA's opposition.

So, staying with the gun side of the issue for a minute... lets pretend all three of these DID pass congress... then what? You either grandfather in ALL the existing firearms and mags already in circulation (which kind of defeats the whole purpose of the ban), OR what else do you do? Are all these once legal owners now criminals overnight? Will our cash strapped government begin mandatory buy-back programs to force the guns out of circulation? Or is the plan to play imminent domain with people's personal property and force folks to turn in their guns or face jail time?... good luck getting most to volunteer their weapon... this means hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens will likely take their chances at being branded a "criminal" by their own government.

Not realistic solution, even IF you can get the ban through congress - which is less likely than a balanced budget in the next 10 years.

So, society influence... yes, their is violence in video games / movies / media... I am pretty hard to shock, but when I overhear some of the scouts discussing games like DOOM, Grand Theft Auto, and Call of Duty... I am taken aback. These video games are extremely realistic, and extra violent. GTA, I was told gives bonus points for killing the prostitute after your character rapes her... that can't be good and I really don't see how its considered entertainment. A lot of the Call of Duty ops mimic famous war battles from history, to include recent missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a former military man myself, I understand the draw of a first person shooter game, but I question the intelligence of glorifying war. War is dirty, war is violent, war sucks and should be the method of last resort.

Unfortunately, we now have a generation of children raised on 24hr news cycle of war. Any kid 12 years old and under does not know anytime in their life that our country has not been at war! They may not see it everyday, and they probably do not understand the reasons (heck most adults including the ones that made the decision to commit troops have a hard time telling you WHY we are there anymore), but they see it on the news... body counts, drone attacks, etc...

The shooters in CT and Aurora were probably about 6 to 8 years old when the twin towers fell and we starting into this mess as a nation... Their entire formative years have been spent in FEAR of terrorist attack, news cycles of war updates, increased government invasion on privacy under the name of safety. Couple that with access multiple hours a day access to ultra violent video games and an altered or diminished mental capacity... you got a recipe for disaster... and thats what we have seen.

So, how do you fix it?

It MUST be multi-faceted.

1) Mental health... I have yet to hear a report about ANY mass murder shooter where those close around them, friends / family / caregivers, were stunned or shocked that this had happened. The enormity of the violence, yes, but not shocked that these individuals had "snapped". This leads me to believe that mental health interventions have failed in our society. In the 50's-60's it was cruel and there were abuses, BUT people like this were able to be institutionalized and segregated from society. In the past 3 decades, the funding has been slashed and the attitude both inside medicine and outside in education and society in general has been to mainstream these folks. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Not all mentally ill people will be violent. However, those that have been violent in the past or have shown the potential for violent behavior need to be treated aggressively and kept segregated from mainstream society. I know this is probably not a popular viewpoint, but it is a truth of the situation. For most, if not all of these shooters, their "blaze of glory" was NOT their first act of violence... those around them saw signs and more minor incidents prior to the big event. We need strong intervention at the entry level event on folks like this. Its not a pretty thing to say, but sanitariums have their place in society. Most have been shuttered and their residents are walking among us, mainstreamed... this is not a good thing for the overall safety of society.

Finally, the media industry. They will tell you that art (movies, video games, whatever) is just imitating life. That may be true, but it is undeniable that art also influences life. Better regulation and enforcement with regards to M-rating on video games, and R-rating in movies is needed. It can come from within the industry themselves, or from a government agency, it doesn't matter. I fear this is a pipe-dream, because as much as folks bemoan the NRA and its deep pocket PAC influence, the video game and movie/TV industry's PAC makes the NRA look like a small potato. If politicians are reluctant to take on the NRA, they are down right terrified of pissing off Hollywood and the media giants.

Those are my proposed solutions... however I am a realist and I highly doubt ANY will be implemented to a degree severe enough to make a serious impact on gun violent in our society. It has taken decades to get to this point. It would take meaningful action and decades of time to reverse the course of human attitude towards violence at this point.

My only real beef with Obama right now on this issue, is that while most everyone agrees it needs a multifaceted approach to solutions, the only thing his administration is really concentrated on is the gun control approach. Very little to nothing said yesterday regarding mental health care and violence in the media as confounding variables in the equation of gun violence.

Never carried on a scout outing. I know of one time (as a scout) that I WISH a leader had a weapon of some sort. I usually don't have one on a private campout either. I have w/ a rifle when I'm going "plinking" in an approved BLM area. If I was going to do a long hike away from civilization (i.e. a partial or thru of the PCT) - I would likely have a handgun and CCW (or carry exposed - which is now illegal in the great socialist state of CA too). I don't care WHAT the state / federal parks OR California says about me needing to having a CCW permit at that point. Its about personal protection from both man and beast when I would be several days from rescue.

As a 15y/o and on a 8 day trek at northern tier. Night #3, we had a momma and cub come into camp and the cub climbed the tree we had the food pack strung from. Campsite was on a peninsula out into the lake, no place to go but try to canoe out into the lake at night. We had to strike up the fire and used rocks to "encourage" baby bear to get out of the tree and leave our food pack alone. Then kept fire going all night and took turns in two man teams standing guard. If those animals had gotten our food, we were a minimum of 3 days away from any replentishment stop, with 7 scouts and 2 adults to feed. With a firearm, the actions would have probably been the same. However, I remember wishing someone had a gun... maybe just wishful thinking, but I'd still like my chances better at surviving a bear attack with a gun than sans a firearm.

I have camped many times in Anza Borrego State Park in San Diego county. Have hiked into remote spots that require filtering of water resupply via small oasis or intermitent standing water in slot canyons. I have seen on more than one occasion fresh mountain lion tracks around these watering holes. Now, the chances of an encounter, much less attack, are extremely slim especially in daylight hours. But again, if you had to fight for your life - would you rather with a gun, a knife, or bare handed?

I have never had any reason to fear my fellow man on a campout. Wildlife, maybe?

I do find it somewhat humorous that in less than 3 to 4 generations, we have gone from an attitude of "Why wouldn't you take a firearm with you into the wilderness" to one of "Why would you ever need / want to take a firearm into the wilderness?" Seems 50 to 100 years ago, if you went out on a long trek and DIDN'T have a firearm, you would be viewed as careless in your choice - now its the opposite. The wilderness hasn't changed, so I assume its the citizenry that has.

Yup, that is really what Gun Control boils down to... WHO gets to define and decide what is "reasonable"?

Thanks Mr. Scott,

Good to know there are folks out their like you.

Dean

Sentinel-

We have Troop guides / trainers, but they are fairly uninvolved with the younger boys... something the SM and I both hope to change. The APL is a newly minted Star (same as the PL). Both made it to that rank with little over a year in the program. Both are very fine scouts and I believe want to do a good job. However, both are very young (age 13).

There seems to be a theme throughout the troop where the older scouts (15+) want to have little to do with the newbies (under 13), unless it is required for credit on their POR.

I have already spoken to this fact both directly and indirectly when asked to provide a Scoutmaster's minute at meetings and on campouts. I have asked scouts to consider WHY they seek a leadership position. I ask them to think about the motivation behind the leadership position. Is it to pay-it-forward to those coming up behind them, or is it to check a box on the POR requirement for the next rank? If its the second, then they are in it for the wrong reasons and do everyone (including themselves) a disservice.

I knowe a lot of it is the chaos that is "boy led". However, I feel we need to rain it in, as I've already had one parent take me aside and avocate to move away from boy-led because of the issues it can cause. I'm not a big fan of that idea, so hopefully can improve the leadership / communication within the youth via mentorship to avoid what I would view as a 'parental takeover' of the program.

Thanks for the feedback.

Dean

OK, so need some input as to how to mentor a young PL (13 y/o). A couple issues are coming up in his tenure.

Frist - a great number of conflicts has resulted in the PL missing a few campouts and twice has cancelled (on short notice) patrol meetings. Both times, not all of the patrol members got the message, so have scouts showing up to meeting location with no meeting and a no show PL.

Second (ties into the 1st issue) - We are a 100% boy led troop. Patrol is a new boys patrol. Absence of PL at both campouts and cancelled patrol meetings means no work on scout skills with the "new" boys and hence many in patrol that need / want to get things signed off for Scout / Tenderfoot / 2nd Class... but alas - no PL to TEACH or sign off the scout skills. This is leading to animosity by the scouts in the patrol. I fear it may lead to some of them loosing interest in scouts, as they are not progressing at a steady rate.

Bottom line - lots of fun when the patrol DOES have a meeting and with ad hoc patrols on campouts. But, very slow progression on advancement requirements because of above issues. Couple that with the fact that new boys are notorious for not bringing their book / seeking sign off from PL, ASPL, SPL, or ASM and it equals a patrol of boys who have been active in the troop for 8 months now and less than 50% have gotten to the rank of Tenderfoot yet!

How (as a newly minted ASM), do I mentor and encourage this PL (and subsequent PLs) to step up to their duty and LEAD ?!?!? At the very least, be good about communicating late changes in schedules so all in patrol have the info needed? or get the APL to step in and take on the task at hand?

Thanks in advance,

Dean

I was reviewing the Medicine MB requirements today (as I recently signed up to be a MBC for this badge) and I seem to have stumbled across a couple issues in the pamphlet...

In requirement 1.p. under "Discuss with your counselor the influence that EIGHT of the following people or event had on the history of medicine:" it has listed Helen Raussig. The correct spelling should be Helen Taussig. She was an early female pediatric cardiologist who developed a shunt procedure to correct a congenital heart condition called 'tetralogy of fallow'. It was once one of the most common fatal heart birth defects and now is regularly managed with her invention and corrective surgery. Seems the BSA has a typo in her name.

In requirement 4.a.1. under "Do the following: a. Describe the roles the following people play in the delivery of health care in your state." 1. lists "Allopathic physician", followed by #2-#19 with various other health care providers listed.

Now, an Allopathic physician IS a general medical doctor who practices "western" or evidence based medicine. This would be fine, however, the term was coined in the early 20th century as a DEROGATORY term to describe these doctors by 'naturalist' or 'wholistic' / naturopathic doctors to discredit "western" medical practices. It is NOT used or accepted as a normal term for a physician currently as far as I know or listed by the AMA, etc...

It would be the same as labeling an environmental scientist a "tree hugger" or a malpractice attorney as an "ambulance chaser" in BSA literature!

Does anyone know HOW to bring this to the attention of BSA national, so that they might at least LOOK at correcting these mistakes before the next release / update of the MB? Any info is greatly appreciated.

Dean

I'm all for every adult involved with scouting taking and reviewing the YPT.

However, there is a big difference in advocating taking something voluntarily and REQUIRING it in order to participate.

The issue to me is its just one more hoop to jump through to get enough drivers for unit outings. The proof of insurance, the copy of the driver's lisence, makes sense. A YPT requirement (in at least one state, now a required face to face training) does little in my mind to protect anyone. All it does is act as a barrier to someone driving in the carpool and makes more pre-outing work for the adult volunteer leaders.

If the state of Texas requires face to face training on youth protection, I wonder how long before this becomes the norm across the BSA?

I'm all for training and all for protecting youth, but where does it all stop? At what point do the volunteers start throwing up their hands and say, "well, this is too much, I'm not playing anymore... I'll just go camping as a family instead."

Dean

Just got an e-mail from our CC for the troop. They are asking that a minimum of one parent from each family REGISTER under a new heading of "scout parent". No cost, but they are given a BSA# and that any and ALL drivers for unit functions will now be required to have YPG training BEFORE they can transport scouts on unit events.

Anyone know if this is a national thing, or someone's own interpretation of the rules at the council, district, or unit level?

Its good to have folks trained, but to register and be forces to train just to drive a carpool of kids... sheesh! Just one more hurdle to keeping the "outing" in scouting, IMHO.

Any other units getting this new directive?

Dean

I only hit "submit" once... I promise !!(This message has been edited by deanrx)