packsaddle

What makes you think they don't 'endure it' already?

RugerViking, I'd rather spend more on the professionals whose job it is to protect the students. But I'd like to see a risk analysis before doing that. If you took a close look at the faculty, I think you'd sympathize with my perspective a little more. Or a close look at the student body most any weekend..... Also, I'll ask the question again. in a positive voice this time: Do you think a business should have the right to prohibit concealed carry on its premises?

You were expecting something different?

Like my Cub Scouts used to shout every time there was the sound of breaking glass....I didn't do it! Just ignore it. That stuff speaks for itself and people who think it is meaningful are hopeless already.

Was that in your area or nationwide, the three stopped robberies? From the linked study: "SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's ask the "one year" question since you say that's based on better recollections. In the last year how many people who responded to the questionnaire said that they had used a firearm to defend themselves against an actual confrontation from a human being attempting a crime? KLECK: Well, as a percentage it's 1.33 percent of the respondents. When you extrapolate that to the general population, it works out to be 2.4 million defensive uses of guns of some kind -- not just handguns but any kind of a gun -- within that previous year, which would have been roughly from Spring of 1992 through Spring of 1993. SCHULMAN: And if you focus solely on handguns? KLECK: It's about 1.9 million, based on personal, individual recollections. SCHULMAN: And what percentage of the respondents is that? Just handguns? KLECK: That would be 1.03 percent. SCHULMAN: How many respondents did you have total? KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews, that is, where we had a response on the key question of whether or not there had been a defensive gun use. SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime? KLECK: Handguns, yes. SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun. KLECK: Right. SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people? KLECK: Something like that, yeah." Anyone want to speculate on what the 'error' is on an extrapolation like that?

PABill, I understand. Do you think a business should not have the right to prohibit concealed carry? In some states there is a legislation to allow concealed carry in bars and churches as well as schools. I too have CC permits (one of them is from PA, lol). I am also one of those educators of whom he wrote. I agree with our school security force and their resistance to allowing me to carry on school grounds. It is a pragmatic problem for them for which no one has suggested a solution. If an incident occurs, they will respond. If during the response time, an indefinite number of non-uniformed, badgeless faculty or students are also responding, guns drawn, how do the LEOs narrow their focus to the actual threat? If shots are fired, perhaps by faculty or student responders as well, and LEOs are urgently needing to neutralize the threat, how do they determine who the 'bad guys' are? It is a bad situation that is made even more volatile by the presence of so many persons with, or worse using, guns. It is an idiotic idea that solves an extremely unlikely problem. THAT is what our LEOs think about it. As for me, if the law is changed I might carry or I might not, but probably not. It would be one more unnecessary distraction from what my actual job is. And as I survey my clueless colleagues, I'm glad that up till now, none of them give it much thought at all. It would be a bad thing for them to think they might be able to respond to an emergency involving gunfire. The thought of having faculty and students with concealed weapons on campus all of the time gives me greater anxiety than the unlikely event that some deranged person will attempt an attack, some unlikely time in the indefinite future. Fear of rare events should not take precedence over good sense in day-to-day life.

"What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common?" "They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law." Connecticut is a 'may issue' state and for all practical matters it is (or at least used to be) 'shall issue'. Pennsylvania is 'shall issue'. Colorado is 'shall issue'. Illinois is the only state that prohibits concealed carry (http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html). How the heck do you make statements like that when they're so obviously and demonstrably wrong?

Kahuna's much earlier assessment of the book is exactly the way I remember it as well. I'll skip the film. I have no idea why anyone should consider leadership or much of anything else in life a 'game'.

That's fine if others want to share it. Make the offer but don't shove it in their face.

Why does religious expression have to occur as part of a herd? Why can't each person just do their own personal thing without requiring the presence of others? This is something I've never understood.

Eight boys unsupervised can happen fairly easily, depending on the setting. Patrol camping comes to mind. Anyway, I sincerely hope you didn't reveal those details due to pressure you felt from this forum. I know you're concerned about your son and I would be too if I were in your place. But like you say, these are early teen boys and the kind of thing you describe seems to fall into the 'stupid things kids do' category. I wish you and your son the best. Keep us posted if there is more news.

As I was often informed and later reminded by an old forum member whose moniker was a type of partridge, BSA can revoke membership for any or 'no' reason and furthermore owes no one an explanation. I'm paraphrasing his message and it used to 'get under my skin' more than just a little bit, I admit. But the truth of this statement is difficult to deny. BSA is a private club. The leadership can take action that is even arbitrary if they like and there is nothing that can be 'done' about it short of making noise. At that time, years ago, I was also informed of this in somewhat similar terms, by my council, as a thinly-veiled warning of what could happen if I went public with my opposition to the membership policy. I weighed the pros and cons of actions and decided that my duty to the boys in my unit outweighed any outcome of a public protest of some kind. So I haven't tested that threat...yet. But I can only offer that if BSA is willing to employ this tactic to stifle 'speech' it probably can apply the approach to any other membership situation. I hope the appeal process is an honest and objective one. But based on what I was told, it doesn't have to be.

Shucks, you changed your avatar!

According to the OP, there was nothing criminal. The question was about the time frame. The OP indicated that the details were not 'on the table'. I'm good with that.

Actually, I owe you an apology for not saying, "Welcome to the forums!" It's the most useful online info source for Scouting that I have ever seen and sometimes it can also be fun (or frustrating, lol). Anyway, there's probably no good way to explain the time frame. It could be as simple as, "they only meet three times a year", to "they wait until they have XX number of requests." Either alternative is plausible and, anyway, since you know the time frame (and presumably can't speed it up), does it really matter what the reason(s) is(are)? You're stuck with it regardless. Sorry, I know this isn't a very satisfying response but "Welcome to the forums"...anyway. Nice to have you.

Seems like the SE should know the answer to this question better than we do. Has the request already been submitted to the National Review process? It seems like they should acknowledge receipt and respond with an estimate of when a decision would be made. I could be wrong.

'Joint' committee? I assumed they advocate legalized pot for religious purposes.

Actually it DID have the ability to select date intervals, specific forums, and even specific members, as well as the usual key words. I'm not sure how you missed this.

Wow, that's a tough question and given your circumstances I'm coming up with a blank. So all I can offer is my hope for your success. Keep us posted.

The search function for the old forums was one of the best features, AFIC. I'm hoping something like it becomes available for the 'new deal'. Even better would be if all of the archives for the 'old deal' could be reinstated somehow. But, yes, it's nice to be able to do stuff again, some of it with still with a little effort.

TJ, what good is being in the majority if you don't get to dictate the terms for 'fairness'?

Grain fed, well marbled, and rare.

Well I sure see the humor in it. Let's see...Barbara Eden on one hand and Richard Boone on the other. That choice is not a spectrum at all (although one side might be a spectre, lol). I view the choice in terms as absolute as the choice that people from New Hampshire can't seem to figure out (on the one hand, Live Free. On the other hand, Die. Folks, to me that choice is kind of obvious, it's not rocket surgery!) So ghjim, I'm with you. Not even a shred of ambiguity that I can see (except maybe for people from New Hampshire). Time for another mozartbrau cartoon!

ghjim, "...I always knew I wasn't". LOL, there was a thread many years ago in which we were invited to describe the moment we 'knew' we were heterosexual. Many of the responses naturally invoked various beautiful women (Barbara Eden comes to my mind) but my response was that I knew I was heterosexual the first time I saw a picture of Richard Boone...yuk, yuk, yuk. Regarding the APA lack of evidence of pretty much anything and everything, the sad thing about that ignorance is that it leaves us vulnerable to our prejudices. On the other hand good solid prejudice should be able to withstand even the best evidence. Maybe the membership policy is going to remain the way it is after all......sigh.

I think that's pretty much all anyone writes about now in academia, Merlyn - whether someone is or isn't gay. Usually, you can make an academic career by claiming someone - anyone - is. Claiming they aren't really won't earn you any points. The sliding scale for gayness is pretty easily met nowadays. Some biographers have claimed Hughes was gay, others (like Arnold Rampersand) have written that he wasn't. No gay lovers ever came forward. He could have been asexual, and lacked a strong sex drive, or felt largely romantic but non-sexual feelings. Some people are that way. He could have had a same-sex attraction or a bisexual attraction, but remained celibate, which seems likely. That's not unknown. Not everyone feels a need to play out their sexual fantasies, and some people with a SSA may realized that they will not ultimately be happy if they become a practicing homosexual. A man who has an overwhelming attraction for a woman (who happens to be married to another man) may never pursue her, out of a realization that such an act would be immoral (as fornication or adultery), or likely to lead to greater unhappiness than he feels now. Ultimately, who cares? We'll probably never know. I 'profess' in a sub-field of biology, mostly related to ecology or environmental sciences but it involves a good bit of physics and chemistry. What some of us refer to as 'hard' science is really the kind that searches for explanations from a reductionist view. Engineering is a good example of the applied outcome of that approach. The so-called 'soft' sciences are ones that attempt to find explanations for what sometimes are called, 'emergent properties' of complex systems, often in fields focused on human or other animal behavior. These suffer from having to employ a holistic approach and aside from the problems of working with human subjects, this approach just doesn't lend itself to experimentation very readily. Sadly, my field encompasses some of both and while I do quite well crossing boundaries to interact with physicists and engineers, others of my peers don't seem as comfortable. One of my engineering buddies needles me by claiming that biology is the intellectual equivalent of stamp collecting. He's right, of course, for some levels (comparative anatomy, taxonomy) but at others (genetics, molecular biology) he's way behind the times. I enjoy his sense of humor, though, and needle him back about the apocalyptic blunders that engineers make from time to time. Anyway, you're right. My studies of people mostly occur while I'm waiting at the boarding gates at airports. I really enjoy phenotypes. It's a kind of stamp collecting, you know.