Beavah

The kid is so angry she doesn't care about her own life and sees the chance to let the staff do the deed for her so she charges right at the assistant principal. You think this girl deserves to die? Good point, packsaddle. Suicide by cop is common enough. With teens and teen suicide bein' a major concern, suicide by armed teacher might be an attractive option. Just waive your airsoft gun around. Odds are your frightened civilians who are packin' because they're afraid of da invading hordes aren't goin' to recognize the difference. Sailingpj, da question yeh have to face with such a system is what are yeh goin' to do when a gun owner flags in the system? So their doc prescribes antidepressants, do the cops show up at the house to confiscate the firearms? Is that a "taking" so that compensation is due? Who pays for da compensation? Or do yeh limit da response to forbidding sales of (additional) guns and ammunition to the person? Personally, I'm more fond of educational approaches in general, but what we've seen in a lot of comments here is that a large segment of da firearms enthusiast community is so lost in Second Amendment "rights" issues that they seem to have forgotten da responsibility piece. "George, you've been havin' trouble with your teenager lately. Yeh need to store your guns over at my place" is a conversation nobody seems willing to have. Even though they'd be fine tellin' George to give 'em the car keys if he's had one too many. That says a lot, eh? We gun owners should be on da forefront of havin' da public conversation about the responsibilities and ethics of gun owners. Beavah

My neighbor's 12-y.o. son takes his dad's non-secured gun out from behind the nightstand and decides to see if he can shoot it. He can. In the process a stray round shoots off my left pinkie-toe while I relax in my backyard lounger. What prevents me from suing the snot out of my neighbor? That kind of liability is complimicated, TwoCubDad. States take varying views on da responsibility of parents for da criminal or negligent actions of their offspring; often parental liability is quite limited. Cars are different because da law is fairly well established that insurance and liability rest with da vehicle owner. Absent legislation about securin' guns from minors, it's unclear whether leavin' a loaded gun around da house is negligent at all. Some folks here on da forums would call it normative, because they want their 12-year-old to be able to defend da household against the invading hordes. Heck, it's unclear that giving a lad his own pistol and high-capacity magazines is negligent. And I reckon we want to be cautious and thoughtful as well, because there are lots of teens in my state who have their own hunting rifles and pellet guns and such, so legislation which isn't thoughtful and careful can start to get pretty insane. Additionally, lots of folks are largely judgment-proof, in that they do not have da resources to pay for their personal negligence. Or, as in da Sandy Hook mess, da parent was the first to be gunned down and isn't available to sue. That's why insurance or surety/risk bonds up front might be a good idea, da same way many states require auto insurance or risk bonds for driving or vehicle registration. It ensures that folks who act negligently can meet their obligation to make the people they hurt whole again. Beavah

Yah, I'm with Basementdweller, eh? It's hard when readin' these tales not to conclude that da BSA advancement system is just broken at any level above da local unit (and as a result, at many local units as well). Probably time for someone to come in with a competitor system of awards for all da units who want to do scoutin' for real. Either that or just do away with appeals at all levels, not just T-2-1. Close as I can tell, they're not value added. Beavah

Neither did an "assault weapons ban" in place at the time which included a ban on "high capacity magazines," which didn't stop the shooters from having over a dozen 10-round magazines in a carbine rifle at Columbine. Yah, da assault weapons ban was always a bit of a politician's farce. Yeh can interpret that in at least two ways. One is that "nothing will work" by way of legal restrictions. Da other is that Congress should tell the special interest lobbies to go take a hike and write a piece of legislation which is actually sensible. Beavah

Yah, rarely works right. Yeh have to be logged in and have cookies enabled, and then they won't show when yeh look at a thread, but they will still show up when yeh reply to a thread. Or yeh can just skip over anything from me. Beavah

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. Yah, I reckon this is da problem, eh? When someone who is experiencing a mental health crisis has a gun, it is very difficult to deal with him by force. The likelihood of an elementary school teacher being able to taser a fellow in body armor snapping off rounds from an AR-15 is pretty low, don't yeh think? Same with Mrs. Octogenarian pullin' off a head shot in a crowded classroom of screaming kindergarteners. Da notion that some armed teacher with $30 worth of training a few years ago is goin' to safely and responsibly take out their Glock and shoot the student perp in da midst of an unexpected crowded melee is just nuts. It's Hollywood fantasyland. Yep, there are aviation and auto accidents which merit emergency response. That's why those activities are regulated, eh? To limit da public exposure, and ensure that those piloting aircraft or driving cars have at least a reasonable level of proficiency before we hand 'em the keys. Those activities are also taxed through fuel taxes and license fees and such. Are yeh proposing that kind of regulation and taxation for firearms, boomerscout? That would be one way to address da issue. Outdoors recreationists like Boy Scouts, rock climbers, etc. also trigger SAR responses, and we generally do cover those with volunteer and general public dollars, though the trend is toward charging victims or implementing some form of user fee support like da backcountry permit system in Colorado. Where it's not done by user fees, it's done by da general taxpayer to encourage tourism and other activity, eh? The local economies benefit by havin' outdoor recreationists come to visit, so a portion of that economic activity is taxed to provide support for the tourists. Yeh can propose that, but make da argument that it's necessary and fair for everyone to foot the bill. Beavah

JoeBob, I wasn't proposing taxes as a solution. I was simply makin' the point that you can't propose a big federal program of armed guards in the schools like the NRA did without paying for them. That yeh can't propose "fix da mental health problem" without paying for fixing the mental health problem. Doesn't need to be "taxes". Can be broader mandates for mental health coverage in da private insurance market or Obamacare. But somehow, some way, somebody needs to bear the costs. Preferably not our grandkids. Callooh, as I've said before, if yeh really believe in da risk of invading hordes then yeh need to run, not walk, to a mental health professional. And yeh definitely should not be allowed to handle a firearm. Da fellow in the theater was a criminal. He was detained by off-duty law enforcement officers. That's as it should be, it was a law enforcement matter. If yeh find being da top country for innocent people getting killed by firearms (outside of active war zones) is somethin' that makes yeh proud to be an American; if yeh feel it represents our country well to be featured in da international news on a regular basis for school shooting tragedies then "do nothing" is an appropriate choice. Is that really you? In that case, keep sayin' "no". The rest of us are just goin' to dismiss that as bein' nutters and outvote you. SailingPJ, I think those are da rough outlines. I'd say da problems are: 1) We see large numbers of incidents of people in acute or chronic mental health situations use firearms to harm or threaten innocent folks. Mass shootings, sure, but also lots of road rage, shootin' the boss who fired you, etc. 2) We see a fair number of accidental/mishandling accidents with firearms, particularly among youth. 3) We see hugely disproportionate violent crime with guns compared to comparable nations with comparable crime rates, with da consequence of hugely disproportionate deaths and serious injuries. Each of those is a separate problem, I reckon, with separate solutions. In terms of constraints, I wouldn't overconstrain things. 1) We want to continue to allow responsible, law abiding citizens to own and use firearms as a hobby or pastime (hunting, range practice, sport shooting, etc.). 2) We want to at least allow folks with legitimate security needs, appropriate training & proficiency, etc. to have proper defensive firearms (ex. off duty LEOs, etc.). 3) Costs for solutions must be fully paid without borrowing. 4) Costs should be borne by those benefiting, not by society as a whole. I suppose da last one is negotiable, but I'd like to try to keep it rather than allow for a general public "bailout". Beavah

Yah, Callooh, you said it. Easier for someone to shoot straight with a rifle. JoeBob, I agree with yeh. Da biggest issue here is da mental health one. Mental health in general is a mess, and has been for a while. Societally we should probably do somethin' about that, not because of da risk of violence but because it's the right thing to do for kids and families. I reckon we also have to admit, though, that it's just a bad idea to have a situation where folks with mental health issues are afforded easy access to guns in a culture where gun violence is considered romantic, or people fantasize about defendin' themselves with firepower against da evil state or the invading hordes. The vast majority of guns used in these mass killings were legally obtained; most of da rest were taken from close family members where the perpetrator had easy access. We're always goin' to have some folks with mental health issues. We're always goin' to have more of 'em in periods of economic stress and high unemployment. Those are both hard nuts to crack. We seem deeply attached to our firearm fantasies. So what's left is we have to find a way of limiting access to such folks. Beavah

Yah, Callooh Callay!. I wasn't proposin' a dichotomy. I was just wonderin' if any of you new-school "conservatives" could be anything other than the Party of No. I don't care what solution yeh propose. Just propose one. I reckon I've floated at least a half-dozen off da cuff, and I don't think any of 'em suggested a federal program da way the NRA proposed. So can yeh join da effort with your fellow Americans and struggle to come up with solutions, or are yeh some loony mutterin' about da Second Amendment and worryin' about bein' da wannabe cop protectin' folks from da invading hordes? Only caveat is that solutions have to be realistic. No "improve mental health" without payin' for it. No claimin' to be in favor of personal responsibility without steppin' up to be responsible. Yeh can reject federal programs, but then yeh have to make da free market work or have da states take up the slack. So same challenge to you, eh? Can yeh offer a set of credible solutions? Or are you as well just da Party of No? Us true old school conservatives believe in workin' together to solve problems. How 'bout you? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, JoeBob, I don't reckon anybody is particularly against off-duty police officers intervening with an active shooter. But let's be honest, eh? Da positive intervention was a result of da presence of those police officers, not random, untrained citizens with guns in a crowded mall. And da positive result was enhanced by da fact that Garcia didn't have an AR-15 knockoff, and apparently couldn't shoot straight with a handgun. So "this incident doesn't fit the narrative" that you are tryin' to make. Beavah

Doesn't have to be, JoeBob. As a pilot, if I get an Rx or diagnosis of certain types my medical license to fly is goin' to get suspended. I don't know enough about medicine, but it seems like if yeh get certain types of diagnoses or prescriptions that your license to buy ammunition might be similarly suspended. But I'd like to hear vol_scouter's thoughts. He's the doc. Since yeh brought it up, though, I'd give yeh da same challenge as vol_scouter, eh? Instead of being the Party of No, offer some constructive solutions. If mental health is da issue (I agree with vol_scouter that it is a big issue), what taxes are yeh goin' to increase to help with da issue? What freedoms are yeh willing to surrender in allowing more easy involuntary commitment, without a jury of 12 people? Should us gun owners bear da cost or responsibility of our guns fallin' into the wrong hands? Or are we like da bankers who believe they should get private gain with public risk and public bailout? If we believe in da NRA's solution of armed guards in schools, I think da cost estimates are between 5 and 10 billion dollars a year. That's a tax of $20 on every individual gun owned. Per year. Are we willin' to step up and pay that cost to keep our freedom? Or are we just whiners who want to have our hobby at da public expense, without takin' any responsibility? Just wonderin'. Beavah

Yah, Old_OX_Eagle83, I reckon lots of scouters feel your pain. Is it just me, or does it seem like this is becomin' more common than it used to be? Da challenge I've seen on weekend trips is that when the picky lads don't get their way, they can tough it out and whine to mom. Then sometimes show up at da next campout with their own food stash. Longer term camps can help break down da picky food thing more readily. All that havin' been said, your ASM for da NSP needs a kick in the pants. I don't know if it's true, but I've heard said that it takes about 3 times experiencing a new flavor before you start to develop a taste for it. I vote with my colleagues. Trust your old school instincts, implement da cooking contests, don't approve hot dogs, burgers, ramen noodles, etc., and pickiness be darned! Just watch out for da increase of secret caches of processed insta-food in tents. Beavah

Yah, vol_scouter, I'm not quite followin' your argument. If there is a law with civil or criminal penalties for leavin' a firearm unsecured where access is afforded to untrained minors below a certain age or to adults with mental issues, how is that an invasion of privacy? Da law only comes into effect if yeh have been a bonehead and your kid walks out of da house unsupervised with a loaded gun, or shoots his best friend in your living room while you were out at a movie. Doesn't strike me as much of an invasion of privacy. Does strike me as appropriate penalties for irresponsible gun owners. Or, alternately, if yeh really feel da need to keep loaded weaponry around your house because yeh are afraid of imminent invasion of your house in quiet suburban wherever, then demonstrate by insurance or surety bond that yeh are prepared to pay da societal costs of an incident or accident. I'd have no problem with that. Of course, I live in da rural/suburban upper midwest, and about da only home invasion I worry about are da neighbor's cat that seems to like our yard more than theirs. But let's flip it around here so that yeh move out of bein' da "Party of No" a bit. I agree with yeh about addressin' mental health. What taxes would yeh increase to provide da resources to do a better job with mental health for youth and young adults? I agree with yeh on not allowin' those with mental health issues access to firearms. What diagnoses or Rx drug prescriptions do yeh feel should disqualify someone for firearms purchase? For possession? For ammunition purchase? How do yeh feel about Docs responsibilities in prompt reporting? Do yeh think da guns and ammo already owned by someone who gets a new diagnosis should be confiscated? You and I and every gun owner or hunter have known folks who were irresponsible or silly with firearms, includin' around kids. YouTube is full of such things, eh? How would yeh address da irresponsible folks among us? And lastly, firearm injury and death have genuine social costs that are significant in da U.S. You believe in personal responsibility, as do I, so how do you suggest we as firearm owners protect society at large from da incidental costs of our hobby? Surely folks who don't own guns shouldn't be taxed or otherwise bear the burden of some of us exercising our "rights". That just ain't just. So what do we do to indemnify society from da unintended consequences of our hobby? Beavah

Just because we disagree about things does not make those with whom we disagree "stupid, ignorant, dumb, perverted, and so on. It is simply a disagreement Yah, skeptic, I get where you're coming from here, and I agree, but only to a point. When it comes down to it, though, some ideas truly are stupid or ignorant, eh? Doesn't make the people dumb, because as you say people can be affected by prejudice and self-interest and group identity and all kinds of other interestin' psychology. . But da idea can still be genuinely stupid. We see kids do dumb things and espouse stupid notions all the time in Scouting, eh? Doesn't make the lad dumb, just makes him inexperienced or silly. So we educate scouts. Sometimes in that process they, like all humans and especially teenagers, will argue with us until they turn blue and pass out. . I'd argue that's not a bad thing, though. That lad might not admit it now, but having his dumb idea run into steadfast opposition from friends really does help him rethink things and come to new ideas down the road apace, or at least moderate his notions a bit. We often learn best by running into walls, or by discovering we're making increasingly ridiculous arguments in defense of an indefensible position. That takes time, though, and that's fine. Plus in some professions, we believe adversarial argument between a couple of folks is da thing that will help a group of people watching come to the truth of the matter. As for statistics and other scientific reporting, I'd disagree with yeh mildly. While it's true that lobbyists and advocates can fund poor studies, or selectively report results, or disingenuously spin what is reported, that's just what lobbyists and advocates do, eh? Yeh have to be a careful reader or listener. In actuality, the data and statistics are valuable, and help yeh get to the truth of the matter. They should make opinion, and true experts really can't make things say whatever they want and still be honest. Beavah

Yah, hmm... Fine points on both sides, but here's da thing. Racism is by no means confined to da south (I reckon it falls on urban/suburban/rural lines in the sense that the more yeh are exposed to different sorts of people the less likely yeh are to harbor those views). However, institutional and political racism is largely a southern phenomenon. Not surprising, sociologically. That was da heart of black chattel slavery in da world, and culture only changes slowly, eh? Look at da animosity between Sunnis and Shiites, and that's more than a thousand years old. It takes very brave and holy souls to work against da "power of place" in a culture. So what we see is that da same districts and groups who supported southern racist democrats are now da same districts and groups that support southern Republicans. When da Dixie Democrats retired, their heirs were da modern Republicans who were never a part of da legacy of Lincoln and da Grand Old Party. A few like Thermond actualy switched, but in most cases their districts voted Republican as they retired. Those modern Republicans were a minority of da party who was mostly paid lip service durin' da Reagan years, as Reagan talked states rights while he expanded da federal government. They're still a minority, but possibly a plurality in da party in the extent to which they're hijacking things at present. Da frothing at da mouth they do over President Obama is quite telling. Is there reverse racism against black conservatives? Well, yeh only have to look at Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain to see da extent of it. It's real, but it's also of da same sort of nature of how trial lawyers will question a trial lawyer who supports conservative style tort reform, eh? Or how a Christian might question another over supporting a candidate who isn't strongly pro-life, or a lad who grew up on a farm supported by farm subsidies being against farm subsidies. It's seein' group identity as being real, and it's an argument that their positions are against group interest. Beavah

Yah, what a bunch of poppycock. We'll never get back to real conservativism as long as these overly ideological nitwits keep tryin' to cast the American electorate as somehow beneath their own holy selves. If yeh want individual responsibility, then perhaps it should start with Israelis and their sympathizers takin' responsibility for themselves and their own behavior, rather than expectin' the Americans to send their dollars and their children to the defense of a foreign state that wants to practice apartheid. Whining about da U.S. bein' reluctant to engage in another costly foreign war while cutting taxes hardly seems like a conservative message. Do yeh folks actually recognize a fellow manipulatin' you for his own lobbying purposes? Beavah

Yah, you guys are funny, eh? Da South was solidly Democrat from da civil war reconstruction until the civil rights era. You bet, da southern Democrats were a racist bunch. They felt betrayed by the northern Democrats over civil rights issues, and da Republican party recruited 'em. Da history is epitomized by Strom Thurmond and da rest of da Dixiecrats, eh? They started as Democrats, but left over civil rights and ended up in da modern Republican party. Beavah

Perhaps in your area, voter suppression is an issue but in my area it is voter fraud. Yah, sure, if your area is in your own mind. What documented cases of systematic voter fraud to you actually have in your area? Da documented cases of systematic efforts at voter suppression were well adjudicated in courts across da several states. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The south had court ordered busing that is still present today in some locales. However, after busing Boston was a blood bath (as had happened in some places in the south), no more northern cities were bused. Yah, this is perhaps da problem I think some of us northerners have, eh? Yeh get this sort of made-up, revisionist nonsense to cover for what was in fact genuine, institutionalized regional racism. Detroit was bused. Cleveland was bused. Chicago was bused. There are still Voting Rights Act jurisdictions in da northern states. The laws have in fact been enforced uniformly, as much as was possible given that racist thoughts and speech are protected, and when not institutionalized racism is harder to address. Da notion that the laws were not and are not enforced uniformly is just bunk. Da issue is that da South had more severely entrenched and insitutionalized racism, and as a result still has more latent racism. Yah, yah, we get that people look to justify racism on all kinds of other grounds these days. Like da birther nonsense. But it is what it is. While da level of animosity about da President is undoubtedly driven by racism in some quarters, I think da real issue that's driving things is da urban/rural divide. Racism is just a subtext because rural America is still largely white. Da real issue is that rural America is dying. Even in rural states like Nebraska da majority of state representatives now represent urban areas (Omaha and Lincoln). Mechanized farming and manufacturing, growth of global trade, move of educated kids to the cities for better opportunities... all that stuff has been goin' on for years but accelerated in da last decade. We're an urban country, but one that gives disproportionate representation in da legislature to rural folks who are feelin' threatened. They believe that the "government" is the problem, even though they are net recipients of government funding. They worry about needin' to defend themselves against riots or other boogeymen, even though da U.S. is safer than it's been in da last 50 years. The reality is that capitalism is the problem, eh? Da modern industrial and information economy is not kind to smaller, isolated communities. Kids are movin' away, and immigrants and other folks aren't movin' in. Businesses are better sited elsewhere. And like all folks whose way of life is threatened, apocalyptic ideas and other nonsense starts croppin' up. So we see religious apocalyptic, we see folks imagining government meltdown of various types, all kinds of things. Mostly it's harmless, but it can cause some significant harm in local areas. What it can't do is stop da trend or change da outcome. So to the extent da Republicans hitch their wagon to this group as they have been, they are doomed as a political party. Beavah

A number of "mega" troops make da age based thing work well, eh? They run two or three NSPs on da strength of their best older scouts as TGs / effective PLs, with ASM-NSPs who really work well with that age. Then da NSP "division" of da troop runs its own campouts tailored to their needs and functions semi-autonomously from da rest of the troop. They would argue that this makes for a smoother transition from da den setup of cub scouting (keeps da den of friends intact, keeps da Den Chief/Den leader structure in place with TG/ASM, etc.) Then as Sentinel947 mentions, there's a high school "division" where those patrols become Venture patrols. Usually by then they merge or consolidate a bit, but that group runs their own deal as well, eh? A bit like a Venturing Crew. High school focus, post-advancement. Middle group is often da weakness in such systems, and sees some attrition and such, for some of da reasons mentioned. So it stays a bit adult run at that level, usually with an ASM assigned to each patrol (den leader light). So in Venividi's scheme: 1) Handled through more direct adult involvement, with older scouts servin' in adult-like roles rather than as patrol members. 2) Mega-troops are big enough to have multiple patrols at each level, so yeh can have patrol competition within da "division". 3) Younger boys do "leader light". Just da basics, not real leadership which is provided by adults and older scouts servin' in adult roles. 4) Still a problem, but not as much because PL is less work with more adult support. Often there's a JASM or ASPL for each division as well. 5) Usually da adults recruit boys for the TG / ASPL for younger division / JASM / Instructor roles. They try to make those jobs high prestige, with adult-like perqs (eat with adults, special recognitions, etc.) 6) Attrition is still an issue, but they try not to consolidate until da HS / high adventure level. Beavah

Yeh know da Tea Party crowd is gettin' really desperate when they start quotin' university professors. I reckon it's no surprise that da ones they quote are particularly daft, and writin' outside their area of practice and expertise. OK, new homework for yeh Brewmeister. History of da Whiskey Rebellion. Test question: Which was da real militia? The local folks with guns who all got together to stave off da evil guvmint, or da well-regulated state militias called up by the governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania to put down all the local folks with guns who didn't want any form of tax? I'll give yeh a hint. At least a couple of da folks bearin' arms "to resist tyranny" were convicted of treason. Professor Vandercoy's thesis doesn't even hold up in da very first years of da Republic. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If states wanted to say as they once did that only property owners could vote, they could do that. Nah. Wouldn't pass muster because it has a differential effect based on race and gender, eh? Yeh can't use property ownership as a proxy for tryin' to exclude a large segment of da black vote because they are less likely to own property. It's true that da Constitution frames voting as more a foundational characteristic of government rather than as an individual "right" (restriction on government). But da trend is as TwoCubDad says, eh? By amendment, we have continued to expand the franchise, and there's no easy goin' back on that. TwoCubDad also missed Article IV, Section 4, sentence 1, eh? Da federal government guarantees a republican form of government to every state. It's a clause with an interestin' history. Beavah

I think Fred's post is rather interesting as well. Of course it is. Da beauty of Scouting is that there are lots of ways to do things. In fact, da BSA is changin' all the time which is why many of its documents aren't internally consistent. Da real thing is like what I said in da other thread. There are folks and organizations with different goals out there for kids. And folks with different skill sets in working with kids. And folks with different populations of kids. The majority of troops in da U.S. are only big enough to have one (mixed-age) patrol with no NSP. 14 boys is da average troop size, and that's skewed by bigger troops. So NSP and same-age just doesn't work at all for half da troops in da country, and when they try to force it they just end up failin'. It's also pretty awkward when they grow from 1 to 2 patrols and shift to age-based, or let kids pick and become cool kids and nerds or whatnot. None of that gets covered in da books. It's hard to just read about stuff and understand how it works. There are lots of fine adult leaders who run active, reasonably successful programs, but don't really grok patrol method or youth leadership. Kids have fun, they learn something. Parents can be involved. Patrols are administrative, and youth leadership carries out the tasks assigned by adult leadership, eh? They don't camp or hike without adults, they don't actually control how things are done. They advance by ticking boxes. Works fine, depending on your goals. As an older fellow who has seen a lot of different scout programs, my personal preference is for strong use of all da methods, but especially patrol method, youth leadership, and outdoor program. That's because I have certain goals in mind for boys in Scouting, and yeh have to set up a unit to help boys reach goals. So that's what yeh see a lot on these forums, eh? Folks who have different goals for kids, and so do things differently. Folks who have different personal skill sets, and so do things differently in order to best use their own skills. Folks who are dealin' with different populations of kids, and so do things differently. That's a strength of da BSA to my mind, not a weakness. Da thing that gets tricky is that sometimes folks are also doin' things just because they haven't seen or thought of alternatives, eh? They think they're doin' fine because there's nothing to compare to, or they're strugglin' to make somethin' work because they're missing pieces. There are a lot of units out there in da poor to mediocre range that think they are "following the program" with da best of 'em, but they really aren't. That's where da thoughts from other folks on forums like this can help, eh? Yeh might think that patrols droppin' rapidly in size in high school is normal and somethin' to be proud of, but then yeh hear that there are other units out there whose high schoolers don't drift away, and maybe yeh think about doin' somethin' different. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, gave a call to another fellow. Long time SM. Bigger unit (about 70). A lot of active program. Does Patrols in your troop stay together for a long time, or are the members moving around a bit more? Why would they move around? Of course they stay together. They're a patrol. [some discussion about why a Beaver would ever want to go be with the Bobwhites ] If they want to move around all the time, you're not doing Patrol Method. Do you feel like this is a good thing for your troop or not? You know how I feel. The BSA keeps trying to change scouting into school. They want boys in grade levels, like dens. Switch them up every year like school classes. Don't get along with someone, just switch. No need to work it out and grow from it. Keeps the parents happy, they can keep being den moms and dads. By the time boys are in high school, they can't wait to be out of scouts. You know. We see that all the time from [another local troop] with their inactive, deathbed Eagles. The whole point of Boy Scouts is to let boys grow naturally instead of putting them into a box. They need to follow, then participate, then lead. They have to grow into responsibility and adulthood, but in a safe, smaller environment. Many of them don't have that in family anymore, so it's more important than ever to have it in scouts. When they get out of school and into the real world, it's going to be a mixed-age, mixed-experience team, isn't it? This unstable patrol thing only happens when the focus of a troop is on advancement instead of what really matters. If all a troop cares about is advancement and writing reports for individual merit badges, then having a real patrol is probably pointless. Same with real youth leadership. So they just do it on paper so boys can meet those requirements. Doesn't teach kids a think worth teaching. What does your troop do with an inactive or disfunctional patrol? Who does it? The SPL and PLC or the Scoutmasters? We've never had an inactive patrol. The only time you have an inactive patrol is when you aren't really doing patrol method. You're just using patrols as an administrative thing to assign kids to. If a patrol is struggling a bit, that's why you have an SPL or other Leadership Corps boys to help coach the Patrol Leader. That's also why you do real patrol leader training, not some fluffy 3-hour thing going over job descriptions. Who goes over job descriptions with a 13 year old? [some more discussion about da troop TLT materials, NYLT, and more and more bookwork for merit badges. Yah, this fellow is a bit of a rascal. But he's truly loved by his troop and kids, and runs a fine program.] B

Not around these parts, Eagledad. Though da effort to encourage women to shoot has been payin' off for several local clubs. They do women-only events and training, and market to professional women. Lady attorneys and da like. That's been a growth area for a half dozen years or so. To my knowledge, it hasn't accelerated recently, but it definitely continues. Women don't respond to their guys tellin' 'em to learn, but they do get interested when other women invite 'em along. B