Navybone

Unless the scout has put themselves in a time crunch, electing to work on an elective MB is their decision. CIS is not different than many other eagle required badges - there are some that are fun and interesting, and some that can be perceived as more school work. It is a not a zero-sum argument, unless the scout is only going to work on the minimum requirement. I can honestly say I have never seen a scout jump up to complete Personal Management or Family Life. But they are an opportunity to learn fantastic life long skills that most scouts do not realize they will benefit from.

The author is all over the place and seems to be looking for reasons to take his son out of scouting. His expectations are unrealistic during an ongoing police investigation. The only part that I do agree with in his article is that this is the right opportunity for BSA to look at its shooting programs with a discerning eye to see where it can be improved. I strongly believe that shooting has a role in scouting, but BSA needs to make sure that its rule, roles, and responsibilities are focused on if there are changes needed to teach gun safety to today's youth. Not only the mechanics of using a firearm, but the right mindset and culture.

Intentional or not has nothing to do with if the incident was the result of negligence. Negligence occurs when someone fails to do something, like make sure a loaded semi-automatic weapon is not able to be put in a boys hand. To put in military terms, dereliction of duty. The young boy pulling the trigger is an accident, but the steps leading to that weapon in that boys hand in that condition is not an accident. It is failure at several point by responsible adults.

I disagree - if we accept that the RSO cannot provide for range safety and range management, then Boy Scouts has no business running a shooting range. Obviously we do not have all the answer, but the idea or concept that running a safe range is hard and good enough is fine (my summary of your comments) is flat our wrong. If the range cannot be run safely, it should be run. Full stop.

I do not see how this is any better. To call this accidental is to ignore that this was, with what is available now, the result of poor, very poor leadership and management. There were deliberate steps that got the weapon and the ammunition into a space where this could happen. Intentional or not does not negate that this entire affair is the result of negligence.

"Carvalho was shot when another boy, who police said was unsupervised, picked up a loaded AK-47 semi automatic rifle at the range. When the boy set the gun back down, it went off and the bullet struck Carvalho in the head." A loaded AK-47 type weapon was left where it could be used in an unsafe manner. The result was the death of an individual. That is not an accidental discharge. Negligence occurred when that weapon, in that condition, was able to be handled but someone who used it in an unsafe manner which resulted in someone being shot. If the proper controls had been maintained on the rifle, there would not have been any issue. The NRAs own safety rules are not followed, rules which you can positively say are written in blood. And yes, crashing your car can be negligence, like if you are trying to text while driving and hit another car.

Since the requirement states that a parent's permission is required and that permission is not given, seems that the scout has met the requirement. BSA gave the scout an out with the parent's permission required statement. Seems reasonable that if 1) the MB is eagle required, and 2) there is this caveat, then 3) the absence of said permission does not negate the entire MB, just that specific requirement. Having said that, and adult bias aside, I think the MB is very effective in prompting good discussions on some serious issues.

First - Question 9 9. How likely are you to recommend financially supporting the Boy Scouts of America to others? * Second, when I tried to submit, it took me to : https://donations.scouting.org/ And Third and finally, when asked, I said I live in California, and the message I received was: "Whoops! At this time, we are encouraging donors from the following states to give to their local councils. California, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, Washington, Wisconsin." I took that as it is trying to raise money and not me just having some negative bias from the get-go.

Yep - just went through it. very disheartening that their focus is on making money.

That is quite a jump when you say allowing someone not to wear the official uniform pants means that YPT or smoking rules are optional also. One is for the safety of the youth and one is the present a unformed appearance for BSA scouts but actually little bearing on the ability to safely meet the mission of scouting. This is not the military. Lets not pretend it is and approach it the same way.

But Curious Scouter and Qwase just stated the standard, and the standard is that while desired and should be encouraged, uniforms are not mandatory. What is the goal here for youth in scouts? Is it about the uniform, or is that one of the tools and techniques to develop and identify scouts? The mission 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.

True, but you have to honest with what Parts. The neckerchief, the khaki or green quasi-military shirt (or Blue for cubs), the merit badge sash are all emblematic of Boy scouts. I would argue the rest is optional.

Replace every 6 months is $120. And that replacement rate is not hyperbole.

My son is in Boy Scouts, and they way he is growing, you are insane if you think I am going to buy him BSA uniform pants every six months. I have a hard enough time keeping him in pants for school, so $120 for pants for one day a week and several weekend events is not going to happen. His shirt is squared away 100%, but there has to be some realism here. And BSA socks - what is the point. Even the military does not tell you brand of sock to buy. Common sense is allowed. my story of the early late 70’s/80’s is this - I was not allowed to wear my scout shorts and the scout socks we bought for summer camp In Mississippi), because I did not have the tabs that went with them. Did not have them at our local JC Penny, did not have them at camp. Too bad - long pants for me at camp (100 degrees, humidity, etc). One of the reasons that I dropped from scouts (along with weekly uniform inspections). The troop I was in before in Europe, the one that was amazing and everyone wanted to be in, no one cared abOut your uniform socks or pants. what is the priority? What is the intent and lesson? What is the return on investment for the scout?

In California, add on top of the BSA training and cost the State Mandatory Reporter training and the Livescan cost ($26). Takes it to what, $71 to go camping?

I would not say that - it s just that the Navy is more technical than the army. Pretty much all of the officer communities has a about a year + pipeline before you get into an operational command. As such, there is no real opportunity (other than failing to pass the different schools in the pipeline) to assess an officers capabilities. There is no Infantry equivalent for the Navy - even surface warfare takes time.

Clarification - For an Naval Officer perspective, promotion to O2 and O3 is automatic (so long as you qualify). O4 is the first promotion determined by a board and it is 100% what is in your record and based on your time in the Naval service. In short, Eagle scout in and of itself will help you get into an academy, or ROTC, or OCS. That is it. What you learned from earning Eagle (leadership, time management, project management, etc) are essential life skills in the military and can very much help you get promoted and be a successful officer. But not because you earned Eagle.

I think that you need to check this. If your son were to enlist, then yes, he would automatically advance to E2 because he earned Eagle Scout. But for ROTC or the service academies, the pay is the same for all midshipman/cadets and their midshipman/cadet rank does not change due to Eagle Scout. And they all commission at the same rank O-1 (Ensign/2nd Lt). I will caveat with my back ground is on the Navy side, but the service are usually aligned on these types of things. Also, the military will not care about the investigation unless there are legal issues. Otherwise it is considered an internal to the organization matter.

Have not been able to get any decision or direction from my council on CinS MB.

This is why the media still calls out when someone makes the news and they are a Boy Scout. Good on the leaders and the scouts for setting the example.

Yes, but... lets also recognize that facts are consistently cherry-picked to make a case for one extreme or the other. As often attributed to Mark Twain - “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.” The 2nd Amendment and the Gun Control groups both use facts that support their position. This creates a "line in the sand" about any willingness to work together to find a compromise. And then nothing happens, until the next killing at another school and the cycle repeats.

Actually, it is exactly what I am saying. Just remove the NRA moniker and official ties to the organizations, but stay aligned with their excellent instruction.

In response to your comment on mass shootings in the 60's and 70's, have to wonder if part of reason that there were not as many mass shootings (this assessment is based on anecdotal, not any specific research by me) was due to availability of types of weapons used today. By this I mean, were AR-15 and other weapons available to the degree they are today? Listening to NPR this morning, the comment was that while there is no definitive data that shows the Assault weapon ban that ended 2004 (?) reduced mass shootings during the period of the ban, there was definitive day that showed a spiked increase in mass shootings with assault weapons (i.e. those included in the ban) once it was lifted. I was in the car so cannot tell you who said it, but the suggestion was that there is a relationship between availability of obtaining certain types of weapons.

It may be time for the BSA to sever its ties with the NRA. It would be a shame since the NRA has good gun safety training (it is what I learned so many years ago). But with the political baggage that comes along with being associated with NRA, this may merit serious consideration. There is some precedence. The BSA has their own lifeguard training. While the Red Cross training is more well know and accepted, is the BSA Lifeguard training any less an effective training curriculum for being a lifeguard (I have no idea, I had the red cross training when I was a lifeguard)? BSA could adopt the same principals and approach to gun safety as the NRA curriculum, but drop the NRA implied endorsement. Not a perfect solution, but may be worth considering.

Maybe because your stance is an extreme. I have plenty of anger about children being killed by guns, but Extremes have gotten us what? Nothing. We are a country and a culture that has relied on private ownership of guns. To believe the answer is no guns is unrealistic. What we have are cowards in office who offer nothing but extremes ( ban all guns, 2nd Amendment trumps all, etc). Until we can walk off that, nothing will change. We are also a nation of compromise, but we seem to have forgotten that. . It’s not a binary issues - guns or no guns. My two cents.