Beavah

LOL. Perhaps. From a policy point of view, if da district is paying for this training for teachers (which I can't imagine any teachers' union not insisting upon ), it's not a good investment of taxpayer dollars. A lot of da cops in schools as I understand it are paid for through the federal Community Policing (COPS) dollars, which is another big, dumb, expensive government program that conservatives should rightly object to. Beavah

Yah, OK ramblinrosey. I'm goin' to speculate here based on da ages that this is a dying troop. No recruiting/retention for years, just a few high schoolers left? Program consists of a dad or two takin' 'em out to events occasionally, maybe tryin' to get 'em to finish Eagle? In that case, on your side as a DC yeh have some bigger picture choices to make. Is it time to let this unit die? What are da local demographics like? Can the area really support this unit while keepin' others strong? Is there a really big unit that has hit its size limit nearby, where yeh can recruit some stronger adults and some kids lookin' for a new challenge to "take over" this unit as a restart project? I've never seen these small dying units function well scouting-wise. Generally yeh get these situations because of weaker leadership which allows for poor kid behavior. Addressin' the kid behavior as an outsider doesn't change da leadership issue which allowed for it. I may be completely off base, and it does seem like there is a new SM (old SM was #3's dad? That would explain some things, too). As a DC, though, this is da sort of thing yeh should be thinking about, and perhaps talking with da COR/IH about. Beavah

Yah, I don't have trouble with most of that, JoeBob. If yeh have teachers who have da training of LEOs and who drill together regularly according to a plan, that to my mind is da same as teachers who have training as an EMT who respond using their training to an injury on campus. But they have to stay licensed and current, and their firearm/med kit has to be somewhere students neither have access nor temptation to access. B

Fair enough, Eagle732 (though they do require speed governors for trucks in Canada, so it is somethin' that other nations are trying). We don't require speed governors in cars, which might be analogous to limiting magazine size. We do, however, regulate vehicle manufacture for safety in LOTS of ways, though. Which would be da equivalent of a whole bunch of safety laws on guns manufactured or imported to the U.S. We do have speed limits, though, which might be da equivalent of gun-limited zones (but with lesser penalties). We do limit da size of vehicles to a standard; we do charge extra taxes to larger vehicles with higher axle weights, which would be da equivalent of higher taxes on more powerful firearms. We do require registration of vehicles. We do require training and licensing of drivers if they want to leave their own property. We do tax gasoline in order to pay for da services used by everyone who drives (road repair, etc.), which would be da equivalent of taxing ammunition to pay for the costs of general firearm ownership. We do require liability insurance for automobiles in many if not most states. We do operate on a strict liability basis for some sorts of automobile issues. We do collect data on automobile accidents, and fund substantial research programs to improve automobile and highway safety. We do let private property owners set their own rules for what they allow on their property, including where our car should be parked (or our firearm stored). I don't feel that my freedom to drive is substantially limited by all that, eh? In most cases, I think it's just responsible and prudent. In some cases it annoys me in small ways, but I'm willing to put up with it because I recognize there are reasons for it and that not everyone agrees with me. So I think we could come up with some reasonable regime like that for firearms, eh? Da fatalities and injuries from firearms in da U.S. are roughly comparable to cars (by order of magnitude), so some similar approach doesn't seem unreasonable. Beavah

I wonder if the AP was charged? Yah, the vice principal in that case was an Army reserve officer who was usin' his service pistol, eh? As close as I can tell from da information, he was not in violation of da gun-free school zone law. It's always interestin' to me how when this stuff comes up, da examples of successful interventions always seem to be by off-duty LEOs and military folks with the necessary training and proficiency to act in such situations. I expect we can all agree that nobody has a problem with highly trained professionals carrying in gun-free zones. So let's do that, eh? As far as I know the law allows for that almost everywhere; let's fix it where it doesn't. Can we also agree that da level of training, supervision, and required proficiency for LEOs and reserve officers is substantially higher than for just gettin' a CCW permit, and that that perhaps we don't want anybody who has just done the $30 class and purchased a pistol to be playin' Rambo in a similar circumstance? Keeping in mind, of course, that those folks right now are allowed to carry in gun-free school zones at least under the federal law. Can we further agree that having unlicensed, possibly untrained and not-background-checked people carrying into schools is probably not a very good idea, and that a law to prevent/respond/punish that is not irrational? Beavah

Yah, sheldonsmom, I get where you're coming from. At the same time, I think yeh have to allow a bit of professional discretion. "Do yeh have any machinery in the house?" might be a reasonable question for a doc who is writing a scrip for a narcotic painkiller. It allows the doc to have an extra conversation about how pursuing your woodworking hobby while at home convalescing is a really bad idea. Similarly, a parent who is dealin' with a troubled kid is goin' to be focused on the kid, eh? Not necessarily thinkin' through all the issues that might need to be addressed. If the doc is goin' to be prescribing one of da antidepressants that has occasionally been associated with suicide, for example, a question about guns in the house might be very, very appropriate in the same way. CalicoPenn, I agree with JoeBob, eh? Da issue is not whether to follow the law, the issue is whether the law is a good idea. Is a highway speed limit really necessary, given that the large majority of citizens exceed it and yet drive safely? Over the past 20 years, most states have raised limits from 55 to 65 or 70 with no significant increase in accidents. He's makin' the same argument about gun-free zones. They aren't goin' to stop the bad guy, and they just annoy or become a tax on the regular, ordinary citizen. Da tricky thing to balance is that we want to stop the bad guy, eh? We'd prefer to stop the guy goin' 100mph before he kills a bunch of people, rather than arrest him afterward. In the same way, we want to stop the bad guy shooter before he kills, not wait for him to start shooting and arrest (or call da coroner) afterward. That to my mind is the issue. No speed limit at all (driving fast is a "right"), and accept that we can only respond with punishment after the crash. Very restrictive speed limit (pro speed-control), perhaps coupled with limits on what kind of car you can buy/drive, and accept that we're going to annoy a whole lot of regular citizens who will likely disobey. Or perhaps somethin' in the middle, where we allow for minor inconvenience or some safety regulation on cars in exchange for providing law enforcement with some options to stop a fellow goin' 100mph on a dark and slippery road. Beavah

Ah, OK. I can appreciate the armed presence as a sound and perhaps necessary means of enforcement for an effective gun-free zone. Still wonderin' what yeh think about private property? That's not so much a "does it work" question as it is a "rights of the property owner" question. Da point I was tryin' to make about school zones is that if everyone knows schools are gun-free and they see someone carrying, they're likely to make an immediate call to the police, immediately lock the building, etc. In other words, defensive measures will begin at first sighting by anyone. Absent that, yeh create a lot of ambiguity, and da bystander literature is pretty clear that ambiguity leads bystanders not to respond. Should that guy have a gun? Should he not? It's probably OK... Beavah

Gack. I'm thinkin' we need a paragraph on every post sayin' "this is what I'm trying to address." TwoCubDad, I think BD's point is that da NRA and folks here have proposed armed (CCW) college students or others as solutions to the spree-killing problem. Da ABC report attempts to evaluate that solution by taking college students through a median required course on pistol use/safety for concealed carry, and then observes how they perform against a prepared gunman in a surprise. Do any of us who have ever fired a firearm doubt that such folks are not goin' to be successful in such a scenario? In that way, I reckon da results are accurate enough, eh? I agree it's not research so much as an illustration of some of da issues, but it does illustrate that as a solution to being surprised by a premeditated spree killer, individual armed citizens with typical levels of training & proficiency are likely to just get themselves killed. You're right that such mass killings are very rare, and other things like eating your gun, shooting your family and such merit far more attention. But that's a different thing, eh? Beavah

Ya think the revolutionary war would have started or turned out any different if the entire population was disarmed???? Yah, Basementdweller, how did we get to this silly statement? Nobody is proposing that the entire population be disarmed. I'm just proposing that we stop writing fiction about real history. Da American Revolution largely saw organized civil militias responding at the beginning, and then of course the colonies raised, equipped, and trained a professional army, with civil militia serving in support roles. Those civil militia had the military equipage of the day, including field artillery and merchant shipping cannon, stockpiles of explosives and the like. How do yeh suppose da American Revolution would have turned out if all we had were a bunch of untrained, undrilled civilians with hand arms, no stockpiles of gunpowder, and no command structure? AZMike, without refreshin' my Mexican history I can't say. Perhaps yeh found one example. I said they were rare, not nonexistent. I generally consider da American Revolution another rare example. Such rare examples are vastly outnumbered by those that followed da pattern of da French Revolution into chaos and dictatorship or the Yugoslavian revolution just into chaos. In da absence of regular drill and a command structure, armed civilians throughout history have a sad tendency to riots and pogroms and tearin' civilization apart in favor of one-issue agendas. On da fall of Rome you're way off, though. Da sack of Rome was done by what was the state army of the Visigoth tribe/nation at the time. Same with your other examples. Beavah

Sane? Intersetng choice of word. Are you suggesting anyone who disagrees with you is not sane? Nah, Eagledad, I was suggesting what I actually wrote. That restrictions on firearms in courthouses seems to me to be quite sane. There are lots of approaches to issues that are sane. Your assumption that I'm implyin' anything different comes out of your choices as a reader to try to make things personal, eh? It's certainly not I that is makin' this a black-and-white issue. If yeh were readin' without bias, you'd recognized that I'm arguin' against black and white here, as is my wont. What penalty for violating a 'Gun Free Zone' will deter the crazy / evil person who is going to kill? Wrong question, JoeBob. Da proper question is "What penalty will help law enforcement and da prosecutor respond effectively to crazy / evil persons who are going to kill?" As CalicoPenn points out, the truly crazy aren't deterred by any law. But you have pointed out (or someone has, it's hard to keep track) that a lot of these fellows seem to stop or commit suicide when law enforcement approaches. So a law which makes it clearly illegal to carry near school premises makes it likely that folks will call earlier, when they first see somethin', eh? Rather than just figurin' it's a lawful carrier and ignoring it. When tipped off and a fellow is detained before he does harm, yeh need penalties which are severe enough to keep the fellow incarcerated. Not somethin' that's a jaywalking ticket. And, too, we recognize that of da firearm deaths and injuries, only some are crazy/evil people, eh? Lots are other sorts. I'm curious, though. Of the list I gave (or any others yeh can think of), are there any that yeh feel should be gun-free zones? Someone else's private property? Anything? Or is this a black-and-white issue for yeh? Beavah

Didn't citizenry, back then, mean you were part of the local militia? Then you would have had weapons training. Often every male, 16 or older. With mandatory drill every other week. I think it would be good to see mandatory service again in da U.S. At least one year of military service and one year of non-military service for everyone. Then a term of 10 years as a reservist. I consider CCW folks "mostly harmless." Like BD or Eagledad, that would be how I'd get a CCW permit, though as I mentioned I'm in and out of gun-free security zones too much to bother carryin'. I'd be completely in favor of mandatory ongoin' training and da ability to demonstrate a specified level of proficiency to concealed carry in public, though. Anyway, back to gun-free zones. I am really curious about this. Perhaps in responses people could list da gun-free zones that they would feel are acceptable. Like can we all agree on nobody bringing a gun onto a commercial airliner? Into a nuclear power plant? Or on private property where not welcome? Beavah

How old is the lad, ramblinrosey? Are we talkin' a group of 11-year-olds? High school buddies? A high schooler on an 11 year old? A sensitive 11-year-old on a high schooler? What does "pulled a knife" actually mean? Knife blade to the throat? Rambo knife aimed at his chest? Pen knife waved around at a distance as a joke? Kitchen knife taken out to cut da taco? Eamonn said better what I was tryin' to say. This should be handled firmly, and treated as serious. But how firmly and how serious depends on a lot of other stuff. If this is a troop of only 4 boys, this incident will likely end the troop. Is that a good thing? Should it be used to examine that possibility with da Chartered Partner? Should it be used to encourage 'em to reflect on making a leadership change and a strong re-commitment to building the program? Just stuff to think about. B

Yah, sorry boomerscout. That area of constitutional law is quite settled, eh? Even da colonial militia leaders got to tell some folks they didn't trust to stay home.

Yah, hmmm... So much bizarre stuff here, so little time. Eagle732, I was not calling you a liar. I was calling Mr. Lott and some of da other sources you are parroting dishonest, and encouraging you to do a better job of verifying their veracity before repeating misinformation. History is actually not rife with benevolent governments that become tyrannical. In actuality, history describes halting but relentless progress toward democracy and individual liberty, eh? Driven by economic and social factors. History has almost no examples of a citizenry armed solely with da hand weapons of the day successfully overcoming tyranny and da armed forces of the state. Most frequently, popular uprisings with hand weapons yield pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and worse tyranny. that the founding fathers just won their freedom from Great Britain because just about every house hold had a fire arm. Yah, this would be completely false, eh? Da Founding Fathers received weapons supplies in large quantities from France, and stole or captured a lot of da rest from the British. Da Founding Fathers required cannon and rapid-loading military muskets to accomplish anything, and for some reason our Second Amendment advocates here feel OK with regulating cannon. Da Founding Fathers in the end won at Yorktown because of the support of a large foreign navy. Da notion that a bunch of untrained, undrilled, unorganized individuals with personal firearms somehow stood of tyranny to win da Revolution is just rubbish. The idea that yeh are goin' whip out your pistol while sittin' in da driver's seat to stave off a carjacker with a gun in your face and your kid in the back seat who would be endangered by any gunplay is nothing but Hollywood fantasy. Da truth of the matter is that we largely stave off all these bad people folks are imagining by responding with community. Friends, neighbors, police, law, social supports, economic development. That has been workin' just fine, eh? Despite a massive economic downturn, America is safer from crime than it quite possibly has ever been. Yah, I'm in favor of school dress codes. Yah, the latest school shooting involved a shotgun. More importantly, the latest school shooting was stopped by an unarmed, caring teacher without further loss of life. Off the books gun factories would be great. Much less effective weapons than what can be built in a real factory, much more expensive, much lower quantity, near zero availability of capital for research or expanding production, fairly easy to trace and prosecute.

Yah, nldscout, because children are children, eh? And scouters are scouters, not LEOs. Not everything is always a law enforcement matter. In fact most of the time in workin' with kids, it's a scouting matter. Otherwise we'd be callin' da cops to report assault and battery every time two eleven year olds got into a tussle. Beavah

I think it is really simple - either society is better off with an armed citizenry or it isn't. If it is, why restrict - i.e. churches, schools, etc. If it isn't, why allow? Yah, hmmm... So I'm confused here, acco40. Your position is that folks who have never taken handgun training nor concealed carry classes, who quite possibly have never passed a background check, should be allowed to carry guns into a crowded school? Because da virtue of an "armed citizenry" trumps everything else? Am I gettin' that right? And churches? We tell Boy Scouts they should take their hats off indoors, eh? As a sign of courtesy. The origins of that were that yeh had to take your helmet off and leave your arms behind when yeh entered under da roof of a friend or especially into the House of God. It would be truly ironic if we hollered at kids about da meaningless form of doffing a cap in the camp dining hall but then advocated taking weapons into a house of worship. Should the minister or congregation have a say, do yeh suppose? For folks like da Catholics, to allow weapons into a sacred place would be a violation of Canon Law. Or so I'm told. Does da Second Amendment also trump the First Amendment? Yah, I confess I'm just increasingly flummoxed by these positions. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so this particular topic seems to have struck a nerve. Not sure if that's real, or because it's part of da PR & Communication talking points of da special interest lobby right now. I confess it's not one I've spent any time on or paid much attention to, nor one I have particular personal sentiments about. I'd be interested in what people think da issues are, though I'd prefer folks who were givin' their own view rather than repeatin' anybody's lobbying package. To get us started, here's what I think is da lay of the land (keep in mind this is Sunday night, I'm out of da office, and this is not my area). Federally, there are several applicable laws, eh? The Gun Free School Zones Act prohibits unlicensed carry on public property or school premises within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school. Licensed carry (like CCW) is allowed, along with da usual exceptions for law enforcement, security guards, transport, etc. Federal Law also prohibits any carry at federal facilities or federal buildings - post offices, courthouses, prisons, offices, national cemeteries, dams and power control facilities, etc. In the states, things are more complimicated, of course. States often ban carrying firearms in some places in accord with state law, and smaller political subdivisions may also have local ordinances or policies. Da sort of places that might be gun-free zones in state or local law include places like: Prisons Courthouses Other public buildings (law enforcement, state depts., etc.) Schools Saloons (usually excepting owners and employees) Sports Arenas Places of Worship Hospitals Casinos Private property where posted or informed Now all in all, I'm not sure what da hysteria is about. Allowing property owners to decide whether to allow guests on their property to be armed seems like a matter of personal property rights that we should not infringe. Not allowing guns in courthouses and such seems remarkably sane. Da issue with schools seems to be either that people don't know CCW is specifically allowed by federal law in gun-free school zones, or they really are in favor of untrained, unlicensed strangers with guns around their kids. Coming to church unarmed and unhelmeted just seems like a matter of courtesy to an old fellow like me; a sign of respect for God and for other people. Other places like casinos and bars I suppose could be debated, but really? Interestingly, da laws with respect to carry and alcohol vary quite a bit as well. Some states allow zero, others allow drinking up to the legal limit for driving. So perhaps someone can explain what they feel da real issue is here. Beavah

Too bad all the guns were confiscated right after WW2 and the people couldn't defend themselves. Yah, well given all da shootings, apparently not all of the guns were confiscated, eh? I think we have to be a bit cautious about comparisons with China, don't you? Yeh aren't really tryin' to be proud that we're better than a bunch of corrupt communist oligarchs are yeh? I'd figure that was a given. Germany, by contrast, is another first-world democracy. Now, they've had quite a rough couple of decades, eh? Hard to absorb all of impoverished East Germany at a gulp. Created a lot of economic challenges an inequities. So it's still not that comparable, but it's much closer. AZMike, thanks for da extra research which (once again) establishes that da claim being made about Germany in the 1990s was false. We should be able to be honest about these things. Beavah

Also under YP guidelines you need to report the incident Yah, bnelon44, they clearly already did report it, eh? That's why ramblinrosey, the DE, council attorneys and such have been consulted. While da BSA language that OGE quotes puts this on the unit committee, I would add a very strong caveat to that. That is assuming a "model" Unit Committee that is carefully selected and acts as a board of directors, eh? We all know that most unit committees are a group of random volunteer parents, or perhaps all parents. Yeh don't want to take a serious disciplinary issue to such a wide-open and diverse group, ever. All it will get yeh is a mess. That's why as DC yeh work with da SM and CC, and COR/IH as appropriate. It may be that da right way to go in this unit is to have da unit committee handle it. Maybe it's a Mormon troop, and the unit committee is a small group of three who clearly do represent da chartered org. In other cases, though, a small subcommittee may be appropriate, or it may be better for the SM/CC/COR as a team to handle it. Just depends. Beavah

Yah, decided to spin off this thread before it hijacked da thread on da Biden Proposal. In da parent thread, vol_scouter opined that all scientific journals are controlled by da liberal academic elite or some such. I suppose that means that therefore we should ignore scientific findings on global warming and actively repress any research on gun violence. I'm not sure why we shouldn't also believe in crystal healing and astrology, too, because those liberal academic elites and their Journals are repressing da truth in order to prop up their high-profit medical establishment and statistics wonks. I'm just mystified. I think I read that last year, average temperature in da U.S. broke the previous record by a full degree Farenheit. Much of our midwestern farmland is experiencing somethin' rated worse than extreme drought. Da list of effects keeps piling up, and da evidence continues to accumulate into the thousands of studies, tracking everything from sea level rise to changes in animal migration patterns. Da emerging consensus is that it is now too late to save most of da coral reefs in the world. I should not in my lifetime be able to "see" changes in climate, eh? Any more than I should be able to "see" geological processes. And yet, here I am, watching areas which used to have reliable snow get none; glaciers that I once climbed are now gone; forests that I hiked are now being consumed by parasites that used to die in the winter cold; reefs I once dived are now dead. It's fine to say that da costs of responding to this challenge are too high, eh? Though I disagree, I acknowledge that one rational public policy position is that this is too big a problem to be able to address economically. We don't have enough control over offshore carbon emissions in da developing world. Our food supply relies on petroleum extraction for fertilizer to feed da planet. What's no longer anything other than quackery is claimin' that this is all just a liberal plot. We conservatives believe in preserving our way of life intact for our grandchildren, eh? Not being deliberately ignorant in order to line our pockets in da present. Yah, yah, we'll no doubt hear nonsense about "these are only theories" or "these are only computer models." Bunch of hogwash. Theories and models are how science is done, eh? Quantum mechanics is only a theory, but it doesn't stop us from building a semiconductor industry. Weather prediction is only a computer model, but it didn't stop us this fall from evacuating the New Jersey shore and spending millions of dollars pre-positioning emergency responders (and as a result, saving lives). Da fields and forests and hills and lakes are where we do scouting, eh? We are the first to be affected when Philmont has no water and our kids are doin' Klondike in the mud and not the snow. Is it time, yet, to set aside partisanship and work together on this problem? Beavah

Yah, let's try not to take da thread on the Biden Proposal off into Global Warming, if we can avoid it. I'll spin da second thread. JoeBob, you were the fellow that brought up Lott's CV, not me. Don't yeh think it's a bit odd to be lauding his CV in one post, and then less than a day later to be talkin' about how those same institutions yeh were lauding aren't worth anything? The man is just not credible. That doesn't make your position wrong, it just means yeh should be able to recognize a guy who is neither accurate nor honorable and stop quoting him. Find real evidence to support your position. I sent yeh off to da Mother Jones piece that did da fairly comprehensive list of mass shootings quoted by many conservative commentators because it demonstrates how strongly tied these mass shootings are with mental illness. So it's an accepted source by all sides. Even a cursory scan of that list (coupled with da fact that gun-free zones didn't start up until the 1990s, not 1950) shows that your 90% claim is just wrong. You can do better. What's interestin' to me in all this is how ridiculously knee-jerk folks get. I'm not personally one way or the other about gun-free zones. I confess I haven't thought about it much. You asked what da rationale is, and I told you. From a legal/prosecutors perspective, it provides a prosecutorial tool which allows yeh to charge and hold a bad guy who enters an area with reported intent, but who hasn't (yet) shot anyone. Da rationale is that we probably don't want da 16 year old emancipated minor who is havin' social issues in school open carry legally into da lunchroom. That doesn't mean they're a good policy choice, eh? It just means that there is a rationale, which should be considered thoughtfully. Beavah

Why do you wish to treat citizens as criminals? Whether a person locks their guns and ammunition is entirely their business otherwise you are invading my privacy. Why should I be held responsible when a criminal enters my home and steals a firearm? That is not only wrong but a stupid argument. As far as children or others that I have in my home, I should be held responsible just as I would for a can of gas or a ladder. How I store my guns is not the business of the government. Why is it necessary to go all hyperbolic all da time, instead of havin' a pragmatic discussion? Locking up guns and ammunition as a gun owner is just being responsible. Nobody has any interest in "invading your privacy" (nor would they have probable cause to do so) so that's just silly. If you're usin' weapons used by law enforcement or da military it seems like havin' the same expectations for responsible storage is appropriate. That's not treatin' yeh like a criminal, that's expecting you to be a responsible citizen. Now, if it turns out that yeh leave your loaded guns in your unlocked and open garage and some kids come by and play with them and cause an accident, or your upset neighbor comes and takes one to go shoot his boss, or your depressed son goes and shoots up his school, then your fellow citizens have a right to be pretty upset with you. That can take da form of criminal penalties, or it can take da form that TwoCubDad proposes of strict civil liability. I prefer da latter, eh? Then yeh can choose whether the risk to your livelihood is worth it, or attempt to buy private insurance which will allow you to leave your guns lying about unsecured when you're not home. Da point is to be able to penalize da small set of gun owners who are not responsible with their firearms. Surely you can do better than trying to argue that dynamite or cannon style weapons are linked to the Second Amendment. There were cannon and explosives in the Revolutionary War. The Amendment does not mention such weapons but rather arms that one bears. It is clear that they meant rifles and handguns. Yah, this is just nonsense, eh? Da only "explosive" at the time was gunpowder, and yeh needed that to load your musket. Da British raid on Lexington & Concord was after da powder as much or more than it was after the rifles. Da civil militia of the colonies most definitely had field artillery in individual possession. Alexander Hamilton began his military career with an artillery unit of da New York militia. Private commercial shipping also carried cannon. To "bear arms" is not the same thing as to carry an arm. It is a term of art which means military service, eh? That's why da plural is used. It refers to all the equipage of war. Even if yeh were to abide by da absurd literalism of carrying an arm rather than bearing arms, that would include anything that could be carried on foot or by horse, eh? In da modern world, it would include mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and light antitank weapons and the like, and if we took "horse" to mean "vehicle" it would include quite a lot more. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... Did the lad pull the pin on the loaded Taco? ramblinrosey, welcome to da fun part of commissioner life. First thing to do is to recognize that this is not your call. You aren't there to solve this. You are there to be a friend to the unit and help them figure out how they want to solve it. It's their program. I'd suggest that if all da kids are buddies again and the parents aren't threatenin' to gouge each others' eyes out that it's time to relax, take a step back and a deep breath. Put da lawyers on hold, get the executives out of it and just go ask the SM what he/she thinks. There's no national protocol. Da responsibility lies where it belongs, eh? With the adults in the unit who know the boys and the families the best, and with da Chartered Org. that runs the program. There are a couple of possibilities. First possibility, and often da most likely, is yeh have relatively weak unit leadership. A few parents who aren't great at maintaining discipline, that sort of thing. Lots of adults aren't the best at workin' with or confronting youth, and generally this sort of behavior happens when adults aren't maintainin' a level of alertness/unit culture that would prevent it naturally. I say it's da most likely because stronger leadership would most likely have sent boy #3 home from the outing immediately, or otherwise dealt with it firmly enough to satisfy everyone right then. In that case, as a commissioner, yeh might need to act as a more firm guiding hand. Help 'em through the process of meeting with boy #3 and his parents, gettin' his side, and talkin' to the committee and Chartered Org. about how they would like to proceed. Give 'em a few options, shepherd it to a rapid and fair conclusion. Then see if yeh can help 'em recruit a couple stronger adult leaders who are better with groups of kids. Second possibility is yeh have decent unit leadership who has some sense for workin' with kids, but it's become a bit of a tangle because the unit adults or parents are in a bit of a twitter. In that case, yeh reinforce da roles, and come in to be a friend and support to the SM and CC. Get folks on board with da direction of da SM/CC in a way that recognizes their concerns and gets buy-in. As an outsider, yeh can't make da call on the proper response for the kid. You just don't know enough about da relationships, the boys, how they joke around, etc. Generally speaking, for "pulling a knife" I'd put the response somewhere between expulsion and a longer suspension with conditions for return, followed by a lifetime of probation. But I can imagine cases where it might get down to quite a bit less than that, eh? I can also imagine a few cases where I'd be the one talkin' to law enforcement and da county prosecutor. We've gotta go with da folks who know the boys and the circumstances the best, rather than use our imaginations. Only other thing yeh should make sure happens is that da COR/IH get looped in. Preferably by the SM/CC, but on this sort of issue they at least need to be informed. Beavah

Beavah, is your curriculum vitae better than this Yah, well, actually... What that CV tells me is that da fellow never made tenure and moved around a lot, apparently steadily downward. Also that da research he claims to be doin' is outside of his field, which supposedly is economics. How much would you trust a fellow who got his M.D., then spent a year at Mayo, and then a year at Chicago General, then a couple years at East Illinois hospital, then at East Podunk clinic as a visiting fellow, then at da Special Interest Thinktank for Holistic Medicine, and now he's tryin' to tell you he's an expert on investment research and wants yeh to invest? Then when yeh look him up, there are multiple reputable researchers who have dismissed his work as fraudulent or just bad? I'm talkin' folks like da editor of Science saying "in most circles, this goes down as fraud." Do yeh give him your money to invest it? Just because folks agree with us or say things that we like to hear doesn't mean that they're always honorable, eh? We should not be afraid to hold those who agree with us up to scrutiny, and to back away from claims that don't match da same level of integrity that we ourselves would hold. We have, after all, disproved a very public and recent claim of his without spendin' more than a few minutes on Google, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Often, but not always, that is why we have an appeal process to a higher authority in this country. We cannot wait for an election, retirement, or death in hopes that our rights will eventually be restored. Yah, hmmmm.... well, that would be da liberal position, I reckon. Gotta solve it with big government and "higher authority." Da conservative position would be da principles of subsidiarity and federalism, eh? That our liberty is best served by not allowin' larger government intervention, but by keepin' decision-making local where it can be most readily be held accountable by the electorate.