Beavah

You lost me at that first line, Beavah. Yah, well, that's what happens when yeh reject ordinary reality and substitute your own. B

Consider that you pilot's license example is applied then to other fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Remember da 9th, eh, there are a lot of unenumerated but still fundamental rights. All of da rights of da Bill of Rights are subject to restrictions of one form or another, when da right impinges on da rights of others or presents a hazard to society. There's merit to havin' a well-regulated civil air structure, just as there's merit to havin' a well-regulated militia. It enhances my freedom as a pilot if I'm less likely to be tryin' to dodge some inexperienced, unsafe nitwit on final approach. As for da rest, you're a pretty intelligent fellow, vol_scouter. You're not honestly tryin' to pass off that Kates & Mauser piece as legitimate and well constructed social science research, are yeh? They lost me at unpublished data from da lawless period in Russia. Besides, da notion of "banning" all guns is just a canard. Da question is what makes for a reasonable and well-regulated structure that respects and enhances everyone's freedom. Beavah

Yah, lots of issues to dig into once we get past "I'm goin' to fight all restrictions." Securin' your firearms should be to ensure no easy access, not proof against a determined burglar. That's pretty straightforward to solve. In order to fly a small plane, I have to renew a medical certificate every three years. They look at medications and a variety of other stuff. No medical, no flyin'. On antidepressants? Probably no flyin', though there are procedures for deeper review. I also have to demonstrate full proficiency every 2 years, or more often if I want to do stuff that's a bit more than just recreational fair-weather flyin'. Despite all that, da U.S. has the da most free, open, and accessible aviation community in da world. Far and away more liberty than Europe or anywhere else. Seems like we could work out somethin' similar that was reasonable, with graduated licensure and requirements. Simple recreational stuff like hunting or target shootin' with appropriate equipment would be straightforward, like recreational flying. Wantin' to carry for personal defense or defense of others would require more training and a higher level of current proficiency and mental fitness. Semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines and other such stuff that's close to modern infantry gear would require another level. Da focus would be on fitness and proficiency, eh? Not on regulation. NRA might like it because it would increase their revenue from education courses, and it might have da salubrious effect of makin' 'em focus even more on training and responsibility and good practices. Beavah

Yah, but Eagle732, those two studies don't show da opposite at all, eh? They're measuring different things. One is showing that the U.S. when compared to da rest of the world is an absolute disaster when it comes to accidental and intentional firearms deaths. That's true, eh? We're the least responsible, most dangerous nation in da world in this area, outside of active war zones. Da second study shows small to negligible effects of one policy choice within da U.S. That's a different thing. It suggests over a short period of time that this small policy adjustment does not have any effect on law enforcement fatalities - a very small subset of da bigger issue above. Two different things. Beavah

Gotta say, Beav, I'm uncomfortable with prohibiting your hypothetical woman from buying. Would you have a poll worker deny that woman the right to vote? If votin' involved givin' her a high power rifle with a large magazine to carry into the polling place, then yah, sure, of course! Da analogies to ordinary every day things from first aid to goin' to the polls all fail because da risks are so much less. In order to construct a valid analogy, yeh need somethin' that's as risky as handin' that sort of firearm over. What would yeh think of a flight instructor signin' off on da pilot certificate of a fellow who talked about da evil government and showed a lot more interest in takeoffs than in landings? Especially if da fellow wanted to rent da biggest, fastest plane possible with da most fuel? If yeh want to stockpile food in a bunker awaitin' da fall of civilization, good on yeh. You're helpin' da economy by increasing demand and lettin' somebody build a business catering to nutters. No different than crystals or astrology or whatnot. If yeh want to stockpile weaponry awaitin' da fall of civilization, though, that's a different matter. You're demonstratin' that yeh don't have da level of judgment required to be entrusted with that sort of stuff. No different than if yeh were loadin' up with silver bullets to prepare for witches and werewolves. Because when you're thinkin' like that, there's a heightened chance that you're goin' to start seein' the old lady across da street as being a witch, or da latest sensational news report as bein' a sign of da End Times that requires action. I'm just fine with havin' an average citizen firearm enthusiast carryin' around town. He or she is goin' to be knowledgeable enough and reasonably skilled. I'm not as comfortable havin' a citizen who feels that they have to carry in order to protect themselves from largely imagined threats or because they see themselves as bein' militia defendin' da neighborhood against da Bad People or da Bad Times to Come. They don't have da training of militia or constables, and their belief in Bad People means they're more likely to see Bad People or Bad Times in places where there are just ordinary folk, eh? That can easily lead to an inappropriate response. Think Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was da classic case of a wannabe cop out lookin' for Bad People, without da necessary trainin' and with a wrong sense of risk. Not a bad person, mind yeh, but not one who should have been enabled. Now, how yeh manage that is a different question, eh? I agree with yeh that some of this falls outside da realm of what's prudent for regulation. Regulation can have undesired effects in ways that people exercisin' judgment do not. We don't want a situation where we're banning wheelbarrows because people in wheelchairs shouldn't be usin' 'em. But we should be able to acknowledge that some people shouldn't use wheelbarrows, and a look on YouTube at Firearms Fails should allow folks to admit that some people aren't well enough trained or responsible with guns. I think that's what's been missing so far, eh? A notion of personal and communal responsibility among firearm enthusiasts and their lobby. Firearms enthusiasts who recognize that sometimes yeh have to take the keys away from some people before they hurt someone - that not everyone in every circumstance should have access to everything. Rather than just obstructing, we should be active participants in a discussion of how to do that through a combination of education, training/certification, regulation, and community ethic. Beavah

It always amazes me that when the boys pick patrols they tend to pick by age and buddies. When adults pick the patrols they tend to mix and match. Shouldn't amaze yeh at all. It's just like most boys will only choose events they are already famIliar with. For most lads, being put in age-based groups is all they have experience with. That's how school and most activities work. These days especially kids come from smaller families. In a mixed age patrol troop, boys naturally select that way,eh? There they think in terms of balance for fair competition, or how to be responsible for safety in a group. Beavah

Just ready the scoutmaster handbook on The Boy-Led Patrol and you will do fine. Yah, that's funny, eh? Seeing as how da SM handbook doesn't answer da two questions he posed. Chaoman45, if yeh want da debate, there are a couple dozen old threads with that. For your questions, I think what Fred and I are tellin' yeh is that patrols won't be stable in a same age setup. So if that's a feature that's important to yeh in patrol method, same age won't work for yeh. In terms of new scouts, typically they just continue on as a patrol in a same age setup. So they'd become patrol 4. If yeh don't have enough first year lads then of course yeh have a problem, but it's something for da boys to deal with, with some guidance. Without guidance, the tendency will be toward isolating the younger / weaker boys, in da same way that NSP does. That's tough on them and their parents.

Yah, AZMike, I don't see da President as bein' hyperpartisan, eh? I think that's largely da bias of da xenophobic branch of da modern Republican party. By any measure, it's those folks who have gone further and further out on a limb while everyone else, from liberal dems to old-school conservatives like myself have stayed where we are. Blamin' it on Obama is just a way of tryin' to excuse da juvenile behavior of folks like da current House of Representatives. I'm not sure how Obamacare "pushes" people into Medicaid. You'll have to explain that one a bit. Yah, Medicaid has some cost controls, eh? Part of da cost controls are to establish a protocol of drug progressions rather than let every physician experiment on his/her own. That's what happens when yeh are in da insurance program of last resort, paid for by other people. Perhaps they can do better, but I reckon we'd all prefer 'em to keep costs down until the science actually establishes that an alternative is better. Yah, we probably let da "mainstreaming" of folks with mental health issues go a bit too far. As yeh mention, a lot of it was good, because there were quite a few folks institutionalized who didn't need to be, who were put there by relatives just lookin' to warehouse 'em (or get at the money, or...). Da pendulum should swing back a bit. No question that da mental health conversation should be the first one we should have, before divisive ones like gun control or puttin' armed guards in da schools.

Yah, chaoman45, yeh hit on one of da things that makes age-based patrols harder, eh? Generally speakin' what you'll find is that over time patrols will shrink and no longer be viable. Some units combine patrols temporarily for campouts, but that really undermines patrol method. Mostly, units just combine or reconfigure patrols on a permanent basis, so da number of patrols shrinks as boys get older. Hard part is yeh need to be a pretty big troop to make that work, eh? So sometimes as patrols shrink boys in smaller troops will lose their connection to da program and drift away. That's where yeh see da troops with high school boys who are inactive and come back for "deathbed" Eagles and such. Good luck with da shift. Beavah

That gun was not considered an "asault weapon" using their terminology Yah, sure. But if we're honest, da only reason for that was the NRA lobbied so long and hard to make da assault weapons ban have so many holes and loopholes that it was pretty much swiss cheese. A scrawny 20 year old is not goin' to be able to easily take out so many staff people resistin' him with a kitchen knife, nor kill so many kids in da 5 minutes or so that he did. We all admit that semi-automatic firearms are a force multiplier, eh? That's what they're designed to be, to allow da weak to defend themselves against stronger folks with knives or whatnot. So it's a bit disingenuous to claim that high-capacity semi-auto firearms are da same a havin' a knife. Now, Eagle732 does raise a good point eh? If we have an Eagle Scout go shoot up a school after completin' shootin' sports training in Scouts, that's goin' to be an epic PR debacle that would severely impact Scouting. And I expect we'd be ashamed and horrified, and would among ourselves and workin' with others do everything we could to figure out how we failed those kids, and change whatever we needed to change to try to make sure it didn't happen again. Beavah

Wasn't there an "assault weapons" ban in place when Columbine happened? Yah, sure. Perhaps that was da reason that Harris and Klebold weren't able to get access to that sort of weapon, and had to settle for shotguns and semi-auto handguns. nldscout makes a good point that da mental health / disaffected teen / mass shooting thing has been a suburban / rural school "white" problem, eh? I'm readin' some speculation among da psychologists that in da smaller schools, being socially marginalized is both easier and has a bigger impact on kids. It does raise other questions about what other cultural factors or pressures may be in play. Beavah

Ah heck, I'd be happy if we had more people who think, period, rather than just assume, guess, and feel. Yah, Brewmeister, me too, eh? And perhaps more who would listen carefully, and begin with personal responsibility. Despite da Texas study which showed some weak trends for CCW holders to be more likely to be convicted of violent offenses (which I suspect was demographic and not strongly tied to gun ownership), da best data shows that CCW and open carry folks are no less responsible than da general population and not a threat. Da average gun owner is reasonably responsible, and while I don't think they're well enough trained or experienced to be trusted shootin' it out with an invader in crowded school building, there's really not much risk to anybody other than themselves and their family havin' guns at home, or huntin' or whatnot. And that risk is comparable to da risk of gettin' careless with any machinery. But we have had a fair number of disastrous incidents with folks who have become mentally unstable, through stress, financial pressure, or mental health condition. We've also had a fair number of disastrous incidents with young people gettin' a hold of family firearms when in a teen funk or strugglin' with their own mental health issues. Certainly, da most reasonable thing to look at in such cases is what social supports we have for folks who are stressed, or in financial trouble, or in need of mental health services. We should do better. And schools should continue to look at what about school structure and support lets some kids fall so badly through da cracks. It'd be nice to see a big push on both fronts. At the same time, it's also worth considerin' what can be done to limit access to strugglin' teens, stressed family men, and other folks with borderline mental disorders who think da world is comin' to an end. While it doesn't solve da mental health problem for those folks, it removes some bad options or at least makes 'em harder when da folks are near their crisis point. I reckon it's also worth bein' thoughtful about some kinds of things that are more along da lines of law enforcement or military stuff. Da closer gear gets to higher-capacity semi-auto and intended use gets to firing at humans, da stricter da requirements should be for training and recurrent certification. What's probably not helpful is folks with no school experience proposin' solutions that da professional educators don't agree with, or teachers' unions proposing solutions that firearms experts know won't be helpful. Beavah

Israel had a problem with terrorist attacks on schools once upon a time. So they armed the teachers and the problem basically went away. Of course Israel has mandatory military service for all citizens, men and women, of at least two years, and everyone under age 40 is an active reservist. So those teachers have a heck of a lot more trainin' and experience than ours do. B

Eagle732, this is a forum, eh? Each post responds to what has been said by multiple people, over time and sometimes across threads. It ain't a private tete-a-tete. But to respond directly: Pure speculation, you don't know if she looked stressed or even spoke to the gun shop owner about her beliefs. Apparently only her family knew of her beliefs. I never said anything about Mrs. Lasko. I asked about whether yeh felt gun shop owners should refuse to sell to anyone who came off that way. Da same way bartenders should refuse to sell to anyone who is drunk. Are yeh goin' to answer or dodge again? As for Mrs. Lasko, though, several friends and neighbors knew of her beliefs, includin' some folks who knew her from da range. Nope, and I never said there was. My stuff is all locked in a 2,000 pound safe bolted to the floor. I never claimed that yeh did say that, and I'm glad yeh keep your firearms secured, especially if yeh have kids. But now yeh have to come 'round to da second half of da question, eh? If you think that's the responsible thing to do in either case, then perhaps is it a responsible thing for everybody to do? Is it somethin' that could become a public policy restriction on da right to keep and bear arms? It has in your state. Should it be extended to others, like CT? Can we have those sorts of discussions without gettin' into da "cold dead fingers" reactions? Lads who are workin' on Space Exploration merit badge can't purchase motors bigger than G-sized without demonstratin' they have da skills to handle 'em, under supervision. That's not a legal requirement, eh? That's just enforced by da community workin' with manufacturers and shops. Can we do somethin' like that with certain kinds of firearms or ammunition, perhaps? Da NRA should have said "there are standards of responsibility for firearm ownership and sales which go beyond just what is legal. We as a community will do a better job of education and instruction for our members and others; we will take the lead in self-enforcement and holding others accountable. We will insist on proper funding of ATF so that our current laws are enforced, and we will target for removal any senators who filibuster ATF appointments because we feel that prudent oversight is important. We will work with others to support additional regulation in those areas which reinforce personal responsibility without overly penalizing the many responsible fellow citizens who handle guns responsibly." That's what I'm not hearin' from da community, eh? Here or elsewhere. Instead we're pointin' with alarm at da Feinstein thing. It may be misguided, but at least da Senator from California is showin' some responsibility and initiative. Shouldn't we do better? Beavah

Absolutely not. Just as we should not be banning power tools and lawn mowers. Education and buildin' up a responsible, ethical, knowledgeable community is important for long-term safety. What perhaps we should add to da curriculum is some additional emphasis on safe use and storage, and also perhaps on how to address friends or family members who exhibit less than safe habits or worrisome statements. I'd also add a bit on "proper tool for da proper job" - teachin' lads what kinds of firearms are good for what sorts of purposes, and that if yeh need a semi-auto and 12 rounds to hit a target you're an idiot. Beavah

AZMike, if you're goin' to address da mental health issue, let's be honest about all of it, eh? Mental health funding has a small lobbying constituency, so it's an easy program to cut. Most of da mental health cases out homeless on the street were a result of funding cuts across many states, led by Republican legislatures or governors in most cases. Yah, there is some ACLU opposition to involuntary commitments, but a lot of that is justified, eh? Yeh don't really want da government bein' able to lock people up who haven't committed a crime very easily, do yeh? Da system is workable, but it's slow and there are too many hurdles or too many places where folks without sound legal advice can just get lost. We should address mental health nationwide, eh? I reckon it would be great if both parties tackle that together, with adequate funding and a fair but streamlined system. Most lobbying groups try to build partnerships like that across political divides in order to be effective. It would be refreshing if da NRA reached out to da ACLU and the mental health and education lobbies and tried to build a national political consensus on this vital issue. That might accomplish somethin'. So when are yeh calling up da organization and demandin' it behave like a more responsible, more politically savvy lobbyin' group? Beavah

Yah, OK Eagle732. If yeh wouldn't do those things, and yeh support community laws which would restrict others from doin' things you would not do, then what's wrong with havin' that conversation? Is there somethin' wrong within da firearms community from choosing not to sell to a woman talkin' about imminent economic collapse and lookin' stressed? Forget the law for a moment. What's da right thing to do? Is there somethin' wrong with notion that your firearms and ammunition should be secured at home if yeh have kids or not fully functional adults in da house? What's wrong with another person on da range sayin' "Linda, are you securin' those guns at home? You've been havin' trouble with that son of yours, and it's tough, I know. Yeh can store stuff over at my place if yeh need to." As for ATF, yeh do realize that their budget has been cut to the bone, and there has been no ATF director for six years because of Senate filibusters, eh? How is that responsible? Where are da responsible gun owners sayin' "wait a minute, we want to be good members of the community, not just perceived as whacko obstructionists!" Right now, in da face of 20 first graders shot to death, da firearm community is comin' off lookin' like a bunch of whacko obstructionists. That's when da rest of our fellow citizens start to propose notions like "We can't work with these people, let's just buyback all their guns and melt 'em." If we don't want that outcome, then we have to start lookin' and actin' like responsible partners and fellow citizens who care more about those 20 first graders than about ourselves. Beavah

Government taking our guns would not have stopped the the Sandy attack because guns will still be out there. If some mental case wants to take a large group of folks with him to eternal hell, he will find the weapon. Yah, first off "government" is our fellow citizens settin' up reasonable rules and norms for behavior, eh? It's not some separate boogey man comin' to take things. When your fellow citizens believe too many people are behavin' foolishly or irresponsibly, then they enact restrictions. As they should. Da answer if yeh don't want too many restrictions is to do better education and set a higher standard of ethic within da gun using/manufacturing/selling community and be partners in helpin' people ensure responsibility. That was da opportunity the NRA failed to capitalize on. That's where they failed to honestly represent their constituents, because most of us firearm owners try to maintain a very high standard. Instead, they set themselves up as advocates for allowin' lack of responsibility, which leaves only imposing restrictions as an option to our fellow citizens. I agree that someone who is part of a criminal enterprise like drug dealin' is goin' to be able to obtain firearms illegally if they want 'em. Da evidence on mental health cases, though, is different. Folks sufferin' mental breakdowns choose tools that are convenient and that they're familiar with, eh? They don't have contacts in da criminal underground. In almost all of these cases, they take firearms from relatives that were unsecured. Usually firearms that they are familiar with and that da relative liked to show off and talk about so it was on da fellow's mind. In da remainder, they buy legally themselves, most frequently pretty close in time to when they act. It seems perhaps we could do a better job of bein' responsible about such things. Even mental cases don't go where there is armed resistance. Oh, I don't know about that, eh? Seems like there's quite a few attacks on police stations, which is why they're increasingly fortified. Here's one from last month: http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2012/11/12/veteran-dies-after-opening-fire-in-mich-police-hq.aspx Da problem is that most of us don't really want everyone at da beach packing, eh? When it's a bunch of skilled and responsible hobbyists it's one thing. But when yeh get to the point of lots and lots of folks then yeh will have some less responsible ones by just da laws of statistics. On these forums about one person out of three has given voice to some stuff which to my mind shows poor judgment or poor assessment of real risk. If they overstate risk that makes 'em more likely to draw on others prematurely or inappropriately, or perhaps not teach kids responsibly. Of da folks who mentioned they carried 24/7, a part of me is curious as to whether they are all teetotalers, eh? Or do they occasionally put themselves in situations where their faculties are slightly impaired by a beer or two? Or more? How many themselves are experiencin' financial or family stress in their own lives? Again, to avoid restrictions imposed by our fellow citizens who don't know as much, da firearms community has to be willing to acknowledge that while citizens in general have the right to be armed, there are plenty of citizens who should not be armed. Instead of startin' and endin' with a position of no restrictions, blame the media, da message from the start should be on da serious responsibility of gun ownership and use. They should be portrayin' themselves as da voice of responsible gun owners everywhere, and partners in solvin' this mess. That's what's missing in da NRA's approach. Yeh begin with "as responsible gun owners, we are appalled" yeh continue with "as responsible gun owners, within our own community we will be doing the following by way of education and voluntary efforts", yeh follow up with "we will join with our fellow citizens to lend our expertise where we can, along with others from the mental health, education, and law enforcement communities." Yeh conclude with "we will fix this, together." That was what was missing, eh? Responsibility. Respect for other professional groups. Partnership with da community. All we got was rabid, disgusting, one-issue hyperventilated lobbying. That did not represent responsible gun owners well at all. Beavah

Yah, moosetracker, I'm sorry. That post just left me with da biggest smile. Settin' aside da 1000 round drum magazine, on behalf of guys everywhere, let's not put any limits on da right to bare arms. I can just see da legislature legislation requirin' long-sleeve turtlenecks! What a tragedy! Beavah

People should be able to CCW where it's legal. The G2SS sets the rules for Scouting, that should be followed too. Amen! Yah, on that we're in complete agreement. Always have been. Will yeh also agree that perhaps someone like this woman who believed in imminent social collapse and was livin' with a mentally unstable son who she regularly left unattended for days shouldn't have been sold da arsenal that was used in this tragedy? Would you, as a responsible firearm owner, have sold her that gear if yeh had known that? Would yeh have let her and her son carry on a scout trip? That's da question at issue. What would each of us do, as responsible folks? Would we let the drunk drive as his "right", or take away his keys because right now he shouldn't be allowed to? And if we as responsible individuals would behave responsibly, then sometimes - not always - it's worth reflectin' that in da standards for the community. If we wouldn't give a drunk more drinks and let him drive off, then maybe an establishment with a liquor license shouldn't either. At least, it's a conversation that is OK to have. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, we're not dismissing anything just because it comes from da NRA, Brewmeister. We're commentin' on how completely ridiculous and over the top that NRA event was. Da NRA spokesperson also was goin' after video games, eh? Are yeh really suggesting a ban on video games is goin' to be more effective? Do yeh really think like da NRA spokesman that Hollywood made the lad do it? I'm not sure what that press statement was supposed to be, but it was a complete joke. We lost scouts in Sandy Hook. Let's approach this as somethin' other than a political lobbying game. Beavah

What is wrong with a properly trained armed guard in a school? Remember da deficit? Schools are substantially safer than streets and neighborhoods. If yeh want government funds spent well, yeh put more police on da streets, not in da schools. B

Yah, I think we'd do well to ban lobbyists. Much as in some ways they serve a purpose, they are by definition one-issue group-think folks, eh? In that way, they don't represent anybody in da country, because almost none of us are really one-issue voters. I thought about banning politicians, but we do need somethin' for folks who can't hold a real job, and I reckon it's better than welfare. These days there's a bit of me that's with George Washington on da notion of banning political parties, though. America ain't a parliamentary democracy, eh? We don't elect a party. We elect individuals to represent us. They should do their job and act like independent individuals. They should represent their constituents, not their party. Beavah

Damn da nonsense of talkin' about "da left" already! Wake up and smell da coffee people. Da left is OUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN. Patriots like ourselves who love the country and from time to time lay down their lives in its defense. And by and large none of 'em are suggesting all guns be confiscated and destroyed, except perhaps in a moment's heated response to idiocy like Friday's NRA fellow. If we can't tell da truth about an issue of public policy then we should hope our fellow countrymen would be reluctant to trust us with firearms. This us vs. them nonsense has got to stop, and those of us who have da temerity to claim to be religious conservatives should be the ones who step forward with honor and integrity to stop it. Thou shalt not bear false witness ... Suggestin' that a woman who is stockpilin' arms for da imminent collapse of da country and is livin' with a mentally unstable 20 year old should not have automatic high-powered rifles with large magazines unsecured in her house is not suggestin' all guns be confiscated and destroyed. It's suggestin' that reasonable, prudent people wouldn't give someone like that a gun, and that perhaps, just maybe, our laws can reflect what da large majority of our fellow citizens consider reasonable and prudent. Beavah

Defend themselves from what, Eagle732? Violent crime and violence in schools is at historical lows. It's possible that your brain can be cooked by microwaves. I know of a few tales I can tell of incidents where folks were settin' up misaligned microwave links where line of sight got too close to da ground. But wearin' foil hats around is still pretty silly for most folks. Lots of da conversation here ain't about defendin' themselves, eh? They're talkin' about defendin' their scouts on a campout, defendin' their neighbors, arming up and occupyin' a middle school or high school. That's not a hobbyist who happens to defend himself in an extremely unusual situation. That's a wannabe cop puttin' himself in a position where he is more likely to be seekin' confrontation. Beavah