Swords

[Stosh]

Lemme get this straight, Bow/arrows, sheathed knives, guns, slings, throwing axes, staves, etc are all okay, but swords are not?

[TAHAWK]

Oh, by the way, swords do not have a sharp edge.  They only have a point to worry about.  A saber has a sharpened edge.  They are also a bit more curved to increase the slicing ability of the edge.

I have swords that, I assure you, have sharp edges and were made that way.   A katana or a tachi is not a saber and yet, unless in poor condition, defines "sharp."

 

As for a sabre not being a "sword<" that would depend on what definitions are being used.  The Model 1913 Cavalry Saber has a straight blade.

 

Of more funniness, at least two BSA publications, both on wilderness survival, advocate carrying short swords for wilderness survival - khukuris and bolos.  But since swords are typically carried in scabbards, and not sheaths, they do not fall afoul of the G2SS "large sheath knife" advice.

[Stosh]

scab·bard

ˈskabərd/

noun

noun: scabbard; plural noun: scabbards

1. 
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   

   a sheath for the blade of a sword or dagger, typically made of leather or metal.

   
   

   
   

   
   

   • 
     
     
     

     
     

     a sheath for a gun or other weapon or tool.

     
     

     
     
     
     
     

   
   

   
   

   
   
   
   
   

Origin

[Krampus]

Let's assume the replica sword was brought to the meeting without violating any laws.
 
Let's assume that a replica sword is not really a weapon because it was not designed to be used like the object on which it is based. Otherwise if we go by Webster's definition of a weapon, ANY "object that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you" can be considered a weapon (marshmallow bows and rifles are replicas too ).

 

Let's assume the complainant is a decent person with no malice in their heart toward the person(s) performing the ceremony.

 

Let's assume the complainant knows BSA policy and how to apply it.

 

Assuming all of that, shouldn't such a person have the common decency to 1) Thank the person doing the ceremony for their time and efforts, 2) Diplomatically address their concerns to the CM, CC and person doing the ceremony in a private venue away from Scout's ears and other parents, and 3) Being so knowledgeable about BSA policy and being a former "professional" Scouter (or super volunteer), shouldn't they close their commentary by suggesting an alternate object to be used ((tin foil over a wooden sword) or a similar ceremony that they agree with?

 

It's that last bit I find amazing. Without consideration of any of this (and assuming the points above are correct), the method the complainant used was not open or honest or respectful. That's why I think this smacks of bullying. Why hide? Why not respectfully confront the issue if they are really a person of "good faith" and reason?

[Stosh]

Let's assume the replica sword was brought to the meeting without violating any laws.

 

Let's assume that a replica sword is not really a weapon because it was not designed to be used like the object on which it is based. Otherwise if we go by Webster's definition of a weapon, ANY "object that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you" can be considered a weapon (marshmallow bows and rifles are replicas too ).

 

Let's assume the complainant is a decent person with no malice in their heart toward the person(s) performing the ceremony.

 

Let's assume the complainant knows BSA policy and how to apply it.

 

Assuming all of that, shouldn't such a person have the common decency to 1) Thank the person doing the ceremony for their time and efforts, 2) Diplomatically address their concerns to the CM, CC and person doing the ceremony in a private venue away from Scout's ears and other parents, and 3) Being so knowledgeable about BSA policy and being a former "professional" Scouter (or super volunteer), shouldn't they close their commentary by suggesting an alternate object to be used ((tin foil over a wooden sword) or a similar ceremony that they agree with?

 

It's that last bit I find amazing. Without consideration of any of this (and assuming the points above are correct), the method the complainant used was not open or honest or respectful. That's why I think this smacks of bullying. Why hide? Why not respectfully confront the issue if they are really a person of "good faith" and reason?

 

..... because common courtesy isn't common anymore.  It went the way of common sense.

[TAHAWK]

"Common sense"  from a culture where the biggest kid in class is "Tiny." 

[DuctTape]

As you said, assuming the above points are correct. We have almost nothing to go on about how the complaint went down, the op has alluded to a personal issue with the person, so their take is already biased. Thus with almost zero evidence of what actually transpired, it is ill-advised to conclude the person behaved in a bullying manner. In order to, one must assume facts not in evidence.

[Krampus]

As you said, assuming the above points are correct. We have almost nothing to go on about how the complaint went down, the op has alluded to a personal issue with the person, so their take is already biased. Thus with almost zero evidence of what actually transpired, it is ill-advised to conclude the person behaved in a bullying manner. In order to, one must assume facts not in evidence.

So what would you call a person who does not have the respect enough for other people to treat them with common courtesy (sorry @@Stosh, we know it is not common) and act as I suggested? Why be anonymous. Why not show gratitude? Why not discuss your concerns (privately) but in the open with those affected.

 

Maybe "bully" is the wrong word. Maybe "coward" is a better term. But when you go behind someone's back to force change by throwing around your experience (in Scouting) that's cowardice and bullying in my book.

[DuctTape]

We do not know what really happened is my point. It isn't about labeling the behavior, it is about ascertaining the actual behavior in the first place.

[Krampus]

We do not know what really happened is my point. It isn't about labeling the behavior, it is about ascertaining the actual behavior in the first place.

 

I get what you are saying, however, shouldn't people act civilized to each other? Shouldn't someone who holds themselves up as a former professional Scouter live up to the Oath and Law (as we all try to hold ourselves to whenever possible)? Shouldn't someone like that with that experience realize how hard it is to find, train and keep people like the person in the OP who took the time to do such a great ceremony?

 

I get we don't know all the facts, but you really don't need them to ascertain this person did not act in a Scouting fashion toward the person doing the ceremony. There's nothing that excuses that behavior.

 

If the person in the ceremony did a nice job, I thank them and move on. If they did something improper -- I confront them (nicely and privately) and let them know. Otherwise, I see no reason to be a coward and go behind someone's back. No excuse.

[Eagle94-A1]

... the op has alluded to a personal issue with the person, so their take is already biased.

 

 

 If they did something improper -- I confront them (nicely and privately) and let them know. Otherwise, I see no reason to be a coward and go behind someone's back. No excuse.

 

 

I need to play Devil's Advocate because I'm in a situation where I cannot communicate with someone directly, and must use intermediaries. It's not being cowardly, at least on my part, but rather trying to use my resources, specifically someone who the person WILL listen to.

 

The individual has a negative bias towards me as I "betrayed" him and the troop by letting my son choose a different troop that led to his buddies eventually joining. No amount of talking, emailing, begging, NOTHING will get him to reply to any communications. At the camp out 2 weeks ago, we were in the same campsite, and he would not acknowledge my presence. I had to use his long-time friend who is the CM to get him and the troop to become involved with the pack.  Yep I had to go behind his back, and use someone to talk some sense into him.

[Krampus]

The individual has a negative bias towards me as I "betrayed" him and the troop by letting my son choose a different troop that led to his buddies eventually joining. No amount of talking, emailing, begging, NOTHING will get him to reply to any communications. At the camp out 2 weeks ago, we were in the same campsite, and he would not acknowledge my presence. I had to use his long-time friend who is the CM to get him and the troop to become involved with the pack.  Yep I had to go behind his back, and use someone to talk some sense into him.

 

Remember, we were assuming "reasonable people". You described a childish person, so there's no reasoning with him.

[desertrat77]

Wow!

 

To think that one week after I received my AOL, I went on a hike in the jungle with my new scout troop a) with no adult present that day, just the SPL/Star scout in charge, and b) I was given a machete to carry and use.

 

Some how, we all conducted ourselves like scouts, no one was maimed or lost or traumatized.

 

I'm continually amazed at adults that search for ways to inflict trouble, fear, threats, etc. upon well-meaning scouts and scouters.   As Krampus said, they aren't reasonable people.   They are just projecting their timidity/fear/etc. upon everyone else. 

[Krampus]

I was given a machete to carry and use.

 

 

Is that considered a weapon or a tool?   

[Eagledad]

I'm continually amazed at adults that search for ways to inflict trouble, fear, threats, etc. upon well-meaning scouts and scouters.   As Krampus said, they aren't reasonable people.   They are just projecting their timidity/fear/etc. upon everyone else.

Adults restricting the scouts program by their fears is such a pervasive problem that I added a section in my Scoutmaster Specific class syllabus of how to recognize it and prevent it.

 

Even in this discussion there is a hinting of immorality for using a toy weapon in a youth program ceremony. No wonder our children grow up confused to how they should respond to their fears. Their parents don't know the difference between fun play and aggressive hostility. Even worse, parents don't know how to teach the differences to their kids.

 

I can't count the number of times the arrow was used in our cub ceremonies.

 

I will never forget a few of the parents reaction on our first Webelos campout. One boy ran strait for a tree to climb, three others ran for a stream. Other boys were doing boy stuff. I admit I was caught off guard when the moms (I know I know, but it really was three moms) ran up to basically ask me to stop their sons from the dangers of the camp site. I was so struck by their concern for their son that I had to think a minute for the right reaction. I politely asked them to relax, all was ok. I learned over the years that every Webelos campout was more about working with the parents than their sons.

 

Barry

Edited March 22, 2016 by Eagledad