vol_scouter

Beavah, My apologies to you and others on this thread. Like you, I have been replying to this list between work and family. I did not read the journal title carefully and thought that it was the Harvard Law Review. So the study may or may not be good. It is not worth my time to research the article and its' sources. So it will have to be considered less important. The more prestigious Harvard Law Review has its' own biases though as do many/most journals these days. Once again my apologies.

Beavah, That is already in place. If I misuse a firearm, I can have civil lawsuits and criminal charges filed. So there is a mechanism. It is the same as free speech, which has penalties for misuse. So those exist. What you are proposing could be seen in free speech terms as requiring liability insurance to make any utterance in public, to post on the internet, to draw, or express oneself in any public manner. Limiting our Bill of Rights is dangerous and should be done with great caution. Once again, the evidence is that higher gun ownership correlates with lower violent crime. The problem is the mental health system. Once when a resident, there was a paranoid schizophrenic who had been put on the street because the left doesn't want terribly mentally ill folks in mental hospitals and the right wants to save money. It was winter and freezing outside, so he went to a shelter. His paranoia got the better of him and he killed another man in the shelter. He received minor injuries in the fracas so was brought to the ER when arrested. He was talking about non-existent things and was clearly a severely paranoid schizophrenic. The ER physician wrote the commitment orders and the police took him to the local psychiatric hospital. It takes two MD's to involuntarily commit someone. The police listened to him babble incoherently on the way to the psych hospital. They left him with the psych MD. So a florid paranoid schizophrenic whose illness had caused him to kill for no real reason another human being. The psych doctor let him go because he didn't meet admission criteria! (The police should have stayed to be certain of the outcome but he was so 'crazy' that they could not conceive that he would not be committed). Is there a recent mass killer who was normal? Quit trying to rob people of their rights but address the real issues.

F Scouter, So it was important, significant, and erudite that Obama was a Harvard Law Review editor. It is often referenced. As a scientist and author of scientific papers, it is not uncommon to discuss in the introductory section of a paper where the current work agrees or disagrees with other works. Those that are in opposition are in some way decreased in importance. Since law is often more rough and tumble than science, such an introduction is to be expected and does not discredit the work. As noted above in a response to Beavah, making correlations is fraught with scientific problems. The point is that the problem is not the firearm any more than it is the car, which has been used in a similar manner.

Moose, Automatic weapons use and ownership have been strictly controlled for decades. Semi-automatic weapons is what is being discussed. A semi-automatic firearm is one that fires one round every time the trigger is pulled, which includes all current handguns, all but bolt action rifle, and many shotguns. So whenever there is discussion about limiting access to semi-automatic firearms, people realize that their Second Amendment rights could easily be trampled. They understand that the courts will determine how far the law goes. Gun control has not been shown to prevent violent crimes, homicide, and suicide. We need to address the abhorrent status of mental health in this country and not alter the Bill of Rights.

Beavah, In the media and the left in general, anything published by Harvard is far superior to that coming from any other source since all other educational institutions are far inferior to the Ivy League, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and a handful of other universities. So I was merely doing likewise. The problem as you well know is that all such studies are flawed due to the difficulty. This was accepted for publication in a prestigious journal and is well referenced. To throw it out would mean that we should throw all studies out not matter the conclusions because they all have similar flaws. The point is that there is no better evidence that gun ownership increases violent crime, homicide, or suicide. There is evidence to the contrary. As just noted, Mexico has strict gun laws and there are large gun fights on a not infrequent basis. Great Britain has witnessed increasing violent crime increasing gun control to absolutely ridiculous standards. So gun control is not the answer. Criminals in all countries obtain guns. So gun control will not control the criminal use of guns. As to the mentally deranged, they often spend considerable time obsessing upon the planned crime before executing it. If criminals can get guns, so will they. The recent crime in Connecticut, the shooting of Rep. Giffords, the one this week, the Colorado movie theater shootings, and several others were committed by people with severe mental problems that even non-professionals could identify. The reasonable solution is to address the mental health issues. Taking away rights granted in the Bill of Rights or in some way diminishing those rights should be done very carefully. The likelihood of any of us being killed by a mentally deranged individual is vanishingly small. Drowning on the bath tub, dying in an automobile accident, or simply falling are all more likely. Being reasonable is attacking the actual issues associated with mass homicides not the instruments. There have been cases where drivers purposely mow down pedestrians- not sure if these are planned - but there is no calls for limiting the access to cars but rather addressing mental health. Our mental health system is an absolute disgrace. Such actions will continue until we address mental health no matter whether gun control is enacted or not. Fix the problem.

Beavah, You make the point that there should be restrictions, licensing, etc. That does not seem to be a prudent course to me. Consider that you pilot's license example is applied then to other fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. So some people say crazy, offensive, and hurtful things in public. So everyone should have to submit to a views test every two year's to get a license to express oneself in open forums. Taking away guaranteed constitutional rights is a very dangerous idea. When the left wanted to empty the state psychiatric hospitals across the country because it set people free, the right saw it as a cost saving measure. It was a win for everybody except the mentally ill who were put on the street to live under bridges, beg, and be paranoid.It released dysfunctional people, some of whom are dangerous, into society. If my guns are locked up and unloaded, they are of no value in the event of a break-in in the middle of the night. Don't steal people's rights in an attempt to gain security were it has been shown NOT TO WORK! (See previous posted article).

So the problem is that gun control does not work. In fact, there exists a roughly negative correlation. That does not mean that to reduce crime that we should arm everyone. However, the Harvard Law Review is clear that gun control does not decrease homicide, suicide, or violent crime. The reasonable laws would be to address mental health issues that are associated with violence. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Well said Beavah. This is so terribly sad.

acco40, No I am not a member of MENSA. Was encouraged to take the test in middle or high school and did not for some reason. I include my Eagle in my CV for the same reasons I list papers dating back to my undergraduate days (I started doing research in physics as a freshman at a major university). The Eagle award says something about me. If it has no relevance, though clearly it is less relevant, when I am older then the award does not have the advantages that we tend to bestow upon it. Also, if an employer objects to my being proud of the accomplishment long ago, then I do not need to be working there.

Even though my Eagle was decades ago, it remains in my CV. It has had a few positive conversations and never a negative one. If an employer sees being an Eagle Scout as a negative, then I do not wish to work for that employer. By the way, Scouting has membership requirements as does many other private organizations. Youth who meet those requirements may join. Not being a Scout does not prevent one from any careers that are known to me including being a professional Scouter. That is no discrimination. One must be an attorney to join the ABA, a physician to join the AMA, have an IQ greater than 150 to join MENSA, etc. To be a discriminatory organization implies at this time that some right, privilege, or opportunity is being denied. Those things are not being denied if one is not a Scout.

Moosetracker, For once we agree! The level of science education and understanding in the US is dismal. Neither party should allow people with such poor understanding and appreciation of science and mathematics to serve on committees that deal with research or policy related to science and mathematics. Unfortunately, the leadership in both parties in both chambers are typically woefully inadequate. The appointments are made for political reasons rather than how the people are best served. Both parties are guilty and deserve scorn and ridicule. It is unlikely to change and it will continue to harm the country.

Since the mission of the BSA is from the website: "The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law." So it has never made sense to me that the same Oath and Law were not used for all three traditional programs. A separate Venturing Oath and Law was probably not the best idea at the time and it needed this change. It has been pointed out here and in other places that the uniforms were pulled because the vendor may not have had the correct federal license to sell the uniforms with a new fire resistant coating. When the issue has been resolved, the uniforms will be put back onto the shelves.

Moose, Clearly that frost has gotten to you. The last election is not 50 years ago. Also, I have been clear that it is democrats adding votes from dead Republicans. White democrats in the past were the ones keeping African Americans from voting - that was in the past but it was democrats that stayed democrats. Byrd was in the KKK.

Yeah, Moose, that cold has gotten to you. Not a story and not a long time ago but going on at least in the last national election. The first person died in the mid-1980's and the second in the early 2000's. As presumoptively democrat voters, they live on. You do not know Tennessee demographics, East Tennessee is heavily Republican while West Tennessee is heavily democrat. Middle Tennessee has gone from heavily democrat to about 50-50. So this is the reality now - today. There have been several high ranking democrats that were caught by the FBI in west Tennessee that went to prison for various political crimes and a few republicans. The Obama administration halted the investigations. So democrats are the tolerant party? Surely you are joking. The vile hate from the occupy protests is tolerant how? The left is only tolerant of those who agree and in my lifetime often resort to violence towards those who disagree.

Moosetracker, It must be so cold up your way that you are unaware of other parts of the country. Memphis is highly democrat controlled. The family members who are still voting beyond the grave are voting in democrat primaries and I would assume for democrats in general elections. In a democrat controlled area, my relatives are afraid of democrat retribution for reporting it to the FBI. I live hours away and have not personally investigated the matter so could not easily report. The democrats in the south enacted the Jim Crow laws, had poll taxes and the like. Remember George Wallace? A democrat. Do you believe that the DOJ would drop a case of voter intimidation against the KKK? Then why should it with the Black Panthers? Why did several career attorneys who had been in the original Civil Rights work in the 60's leave the DOJ because the department was only going to prosecute people keeping traditionally democrat voters from voting and not vice versa? Change you statements from Republican to democrat and you will have a more correct world view.

Moosetracker, Thus has been going on over 20 years so has nothing to do with this election in particular. The area is heavily Democrat and the family has seen retribution for doing more than contesting the situation. Not aware of Republicans keeping legitimate voters from voting but witnessed democrats in the south actively trying to keep African Americans from voting. Why would the WH drop a case against the Black Panthers for intimating voters? They had been found guilty and the case was at the sentencing stage when Holder and the WH dropped it? They are not concerned with voter rights but getting elected. In my lifetime, the democrat party has been charged with voter fraud more than Republicans by a wide margin. The WH is not enforcing laws to assure that the Armed Forces get their votes counted presumably because they vote Republican. Those two cases alone are disgusting.

I have dead relatives by marriage who are still voting in Memphis. One died over 20 years ago and the other over 30. The family has complained many times to get their names removed. They were changed from Republican to Democrat in the primaries after they died. Much Democrat voter fraud in Memphis. Democrats fight to not purge voter roles, to not require identification, etc. In other words, they fight everything to prevent voter fraud because it benefits them. Such ethics are disgusting and not deserving of support from the public. The Obama WH supporting Black Panthers intimidating voters is disgusting. Moosetracker, your head is in the sand on this issue.

Tom Sawyer Huckleberry Finn Recently, the Bible

It should be pointed out that Tiger Woods did not join Augusta National, he played in their tournament. The BSA analogy would be to do a program for the youth but never join. By voluntarily joining, one is making a tacit endorsement. I know that many of you will not like that but it is true no matter what you see your motives. Others will see it as an endorsement. To say otherwise would be to say that you believe that someone who joined a group of skinheads is really for racial equality or that someone who joined the Black Panthers thinks that white people do not ever discriminate.

Unlike most private country clubs, Augusta National does not have applications. They invite only who they wish. In fact, the legend is that if one tries to apply, it nearly guarantees that they will not be elected to membership. Glad to see that the club changed on its' own terms. When the topic first became an issue, the Masters went on TV without sponsors. When asked how long that they could continue, the answer was at least ten years. So it is unlikely that IBM had anything to do with the decision as far as sponsorship. Like the BSA, they have the right to select their membership.

Moosetracker, If you are a conservative, then there was no Republican candidate in the primaries including Romney and his running mate who is as bad as Obama. Obama is the worst president in my lifetime (Eisenhower on) with only Jimmy Carter being a distant second. So don't hold your breath on true conservatives crossing over despite Romney and Ryan being a weak ticket. By Obama's own criteria, he should not be re-elected.

Remember, unless absolutely anyone can join an organization, then by your use it is discriminatory. The ABA allows only lawyers to join, the AMA is the same for physicians, and most churches ask one to agree to a set of beliefs. All of those are membership requirements as is that of the BSA. All can be discriminatory if you wish to define it that way. So in discussing the policy, use terms such as membership requirements and point out that most organizations discriminate even if it only that the members have to be children or adults.

The issue is that someone can be in a Venturing Crew and a Boy Scout Troop and be elected to OA membership. So a female Crew member or any Advisor not a member of a troop cannot be elected to membership. One can say that it is OK because they are members of a troop. However, look those young girls in the eye and explain to them why they are excluded from membership. Explain to them why adults in troops make disparaging comments about them and exclude them too. Explain why those adults subscribe to the Scout Oath and Law but see nothing wrong in making unkind remarks that they do not belong. These youth are the same age. This discussion shows that there is more concern about a small minority than girls and women already in the program. BTW, the percentage of African-Americans in 1960 was 10.5 and was 12.3 in 2000. The point is that there is more concern over homosexual issues than in treating girls and women in our organization in an inclusive manner.

So here is a much larger group of people that are not being included and the tenor of the discourse is a fraction of that for less than 4% of the population. Why the double standard?

Watching the debate on homosexuals and Scouting is the same arguments by primarily the same posters. According to the CDC, homosexuals are less than 4% of the population. So let's discuss a far larger group in Scouting who are not treated equally. This would be female Venturers, Venturing Advisors and Venturing Associate Advisors and the OA. Our Crew's Advisor is a very professionally accomplished lady who is Powderhorn trained and an excellent Crew Advisor. She is involved on several levels in Scouting. At a recent training event, she asked me about becoming a member of the OA but she cannot and neither can any of our girls. Because of this, I no longer wear any OA patches, etc. My preference would be to leave the OA as is an develop an honor organization that is coed for Venturing. What do you think?