How can we, the BSA, positively respond to the ongoing issue around Gun Control?

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

...  Most of the students that approach him are in pain from loneliness. ...

Hugely agree with this!   Thoreau wrote "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."   

[InquisitiveScouter]

4 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As a former BSA Lifeguard, I can tell you it is 99.98% ARC to the point that the books and videos used in the class was ARC. In fact if you were willing to pay an extra $20 and take the ARC exam, you would be dual certified. the .02% difference was BSA's Safe Swim Defense and Safety Afloat.

So BSA Lifeguard is not a good example of BSA going their own way.

It did not used to be this way.  IIRC, you had to demonstrate proficiency in Canoeing and Rowing, executing Safe Swim Defense, and conducting a Lost Bather Drill.  I just did the ARC Lifeguard Course in Dec 2021 with my 16 y.o.  There were some challenging parts, but nowhere near the effort I had to put in to earn BSA Lifeguard back in the day.

 

P.S.  Yup, IRC...  http://dankohn.info/~scouts/resources/bsa_lifeguard.pdf  They did away with a lot of this in the 2013 Aquatics Revision

Edited May 31, 2022 by InquisitiveScouter

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

It did not used to be this way.  IIRC, you had to demonstrate proficiency in Canoeing and Rowing, executing Safe Swim Defense, and conducting a Lost Bather Drill.  I just did the ARC Lifeguard Course in Dec 2021 with my 16 y.o.  There were some challenging parts, but nowhere near the effort I had to put in to earn BSA Lifeguard back in the day.

 

P.S.  Yup, IRC...  http://dankohn.info/~scouts/resources/bsa_lifeguard.pdf  They did away with a lot of this in the 2013 Aquatics Revision

Don't I know it. In 1994 I was a YMCA Lifeguard Instructor, who also worked and trained with ARC Lifeguards, and a 3rd national organization's lifeguards that I cannot remember, at the college pool.  I took BSA Lifegaurd in 1994, and it was the hardest, most demanding lifeguard course because it not only covered pools, but also lakes , rivers, and open water.

It started before 2013. One reason why I never went for BSA Lifeguard  as a youth was because A) I did not have Rowing MB, which was a prerequisite along with Swimming, Lifesaving, and Canoeing MBs and B) I was working summers as a YMCA Lifeguard and needed to earn money. When I first became a BSA Lifeguard in 1994, those merit badges were no longer perquisites, although you still had to demonstrate the skills in the requirements.

[scoutldr]

I heard on the radio this week that we are losing 300 people daily from Fentanyl.  Yet suggesting a "common sense" solution of securing the borders is met with vehement opposition from the left.  I don't understand the selective outrage.

[Oldscout448]

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Don't I know it. In 1994 I was a YMCA Lifeguard Instructor, who also worked and trained with ARC Lifeguards, and a 3rd national organization's lifeguards that I cannot remember, at the college pool.  I took BSA Lifegaurd in 1994, and it was the hardest, most demanding lifeguard course because it not only covered pools, but also lakes , rivers, and open water.

It started before 2013. One reason why I never went for BSA Lifeguard  as a youth was because A) I did not have Rowing MB, which was a prerequisite along with Swimming, Lifesaving, and Canoeing MBs and B) I was working summers as a YMCA Lifeguard and needed to earn money. When I first became a BSA Lifeguard in 1994, those merit badges were no longer perquisites, although you still had to demonstrate the skills in the requirements.

At my last summer camp as a scout, I remember wanting to get the BSA lifeguard too.  It was a  relatively rare cool looking patch that  would look really good between the 50 miler patches on my denim patch jacket.  How hard could it be anyway?  I already had the four prerequisite merit badges and was a ARC Lifeguard.  Then I discovered I would need to spend 3 hours per day at the waterfront, and even worse the patch could only be worn on swimming trunks.   I decided to spend my last hours as a scout at camp with my friends, Snipe hunting,  winning  the camp shooting contest,  etc.

[Oldscout448]

I wrote a long post then deleted it for a number of reasons.  But here's the conclusion.

I would tell the scouts " A gun is a tool and like any other tool it can be used for good or for ill.  It depends upon the skill and intent of the user.  The one difference is that a gun makes killing fast and easy.  So be very slow and very judicious  in your decision to use one,  for a life taken can never be called back."

[elitts]

15 hours ago, skeptic said:

"Is NRA good or bad?"  

My long time perception is that the original NRA was and still can be positive player in this issue.  But, that status has been eroded by the politics at have taken over the organization.  I have discussed rational and common sense ideas related to this with a number of NRA members and somewhat radical, in my view, gun owners.  One of those is my older brother.  He agrees almost whole heartedly that reasonable training and barriers are essential, and says he would have no problem with them.  Then he turns around and starts with the corruption of the 2nd Amendment nonsense and goes off on the common tangent we hear about this.  Yet he just agreed that training and restrictions are important for owning and using a firearm.

 

This has been my contention for as long as I can remember.  I'm all good with the 2nd amendment and I have no interest in taking guns in general away from people; but for at least the last 20 years (dunno how much longer) the NRA has stood firm against ANY form of regulation under the "slippery slope" argument.

I just can't see things like the option of a court taking guns away from people with diagnosed Dementia or other major psychological disorders as something any rational person should be against.  I don't like the idea of someone not taking their pills resulting in weapons being in the hands of someone having a psychotic break.

[InquisitiveScouter]

A Mountain Dream

ENFORCED solitary leisure spent among mountain tops is so good for the soul that every man would be the better for such "retreat" if he forced himself to take it occasionally.

The quiet meditation, remote from the rush and unrest of ordinary life, cleanses the mind, and gives it ease and inspiration.  Sitting here, unperturbed by Press headlines, and looking at Mount Kenya with his hoary old head standing four square as ever, one sees the clouds come and cover him for a time, and though they bring thunder and storm, they rift away again, leaving him standing there unmoved in the sunshine, as he has stood through thousands of years of similar passing showers.

So too, on a larger scale, this world is, from time to time, disturbed by clouds of war and unrest; but these pass away and, together with them, thank goodness, the agitators who brought them about; and the old world wags on unmoved as it has done for thousands of years through similar nightmares.

So you say to yourself, why get rattled about troubles that you can't prevent ? But can't you ? Browning says: "God's in His Heaven; all's right with the world."

But a certain head-hunting tribe says that this is not so. Their belief is that the devil has for the present got possession of the world, and when that possession is over God's reign of peace will come.

The devil's agents are, after all, merely men, and it is therefore possible for man also to counter his devilments, and to bring about that reign of Peace and Goodwill which is the reign of God.

Here seems the opportunity-- indeed the Duty-- for every individual to take his share in preventing recurrence of those evils. It is in such crusade that I see a goal open to Scouters and Old Scouts.

My mountain says "Look wider; look higher; look further ahead, and a way will be seen."

Moral Rearmament, a vague term, though much used, is open to many interpretations, but among these few have so far supplied practical steps for making it a definite quality in our citizenship.

Yet the spirit of it is essential. I ventured to write a letter to The Times last year, recommending the adoption of some simple form of self-dedication to the service of Goodwill and Peace, much on the lines of the Boy Scout Promise.

This brought me numbers of letters of approval, but I don't hear whether anything definite has been done about it. Before the war a scheme for our national education was formulated "to build citizens rather than scholars"; but like many other good intentions it was dropped during the war, and has never been fully revived.

Now, even more than in those days, is such training needed if we, as a nation, are to keep pace with the developments of the age and hold our own, in giving a moral lead to others. The character of a nation depends on the individual character of its members.

Our falling birth-rate demands extra efficiency in every individual, to compensate for our lack of numbers. The steps taken by totalitarians abroad should be a spur to us where they are enforcing the universal training of their youth. This is done on lines based on Scouting methods, but confined to purely nationalist ideals of citizenship.

Citizenship has been defined briefly as "active loyalty to the community"; but should aim at securing peaceful and friendly relations with other nations. In a free country like ours it is easy, and not unusual, to consider oneself a good citizen by being a law-abiding man, doing your work and expressing your choice in politics, sport, or activities, "leaving it to George" to worry about the nation's welfare. This is passive citizenship. But the times to-day demand more than passive citizenship if we are to be a sound and solid nation, able to stand up among the others, and able to uphold in the world the virtues of freedom, justice, and honour.

Members of the church realise that it is not possible for them alone to accomplish this change of spirit. Indeed Totalitarian States look on the differing denominations rather as elements of discord in their peoples, where unity is essential for making a nation.

If, however, the individual believes that peace and goodwill are needed it is a matter for that individual, however humble, to contribute to their promotion.

It seems that each has to so discipline his conduct and, character that in his daily life he sees the other fellow's point of view as well as his own, whether it is in business dealings, or in politics, national and international, and that he is prepared to give Service wherever he can see it needed.

To believe that Peace and Goodwill-- instead of war and ill-will-- constitute the reign of God in the world is in itself a "religion." It is a religion to which all can subscribe, and one which no denomination will deny.

Its practice is citizenship of the highest type.

After all, are not these the tenets which are, and always have been, the underlying aim of our training in the Scouts ?

If you could get them more fully understood and more widely extended it would be a direct and practical, if minor, contribution towards eventually bringing about the Kingdom of God in the world. Can you see a higher, or more worthwhile. Life Crusade than this for a man ?

As very many Scouters have already realised, it opens up a wonderful opportunity for each of us, according to our powers, whether we be Scouters, Rovers, or Old Scouts, to take a hand in spreading by personal example, by teaching and talks, this practical step in the so-called Moral Rearmament. One man cannot hope to do much, but tiny individual coelenterata have built coral islands by co-operation in an ideal. It needs a highly optimistic acorn to start hopefully on producing an oak tree.

But here, in our Movement, we have all the encouragement of a pretty big plant already existing as a nucleus, in our four and a half million of boys and girls in British and other countries.

Then besides them there are the many more millions of Old Scouts and ex-Guides who will rally to the call.

To descend to details :

Let us therefore, in training our Scouts, keep the higher aims in the forefront, not let ourselves become too absorbed in the steps.

Don't let the technical outweigh the moral. Field efficiency, backwoodsmanship, camping, hiking, good, turns. Jamboree comradeships are all means, not the end.

The end is CHARACTER-- character with a purpose.

And that purpose, that the next generation be sane in an insane world, and develop the higher realisation of Service, the active service of Love and Duty to God and neighbour.

 

BP March, 1939.

Edited June 1, 2022 by RememberSchiff
thanks for post, I formatted for readability

[ThenNow]

22 minutes ago, elitts said:

I just can't see things like the option of a court taking guns away from people with diagnosed Dementia or other major psychological disorders as something any rational person should be against.  I don't like the idea of someone not taking their pills resulting in weapons being in the hands of someone having a psychotic break.

1. Who is making this list of Dementia patients and psychologically disordered individuals, to whom is it reported, how does the pre-purchase "red flag" work, and who executes the search and seizure of those weapons already in their possession? Are all weapons included in the prohibition and seizure? Are family members mandated to "report" and, in the event they fail or mishandle the reporting, are they liable for any resulting injury? Mental health providers? Geriatricians? GP? Friends, employers, colleagues, children...?

2. How do we define "major psychological disorders"?

3. Does your research indicate that all/most/many of those found to commit gun violence are "off their meds"?

4. Beyond these laws, how do you see your suggestion being drafted and implemented?

 https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

Edited June 1, 2022 by ThenNow

[elitts]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

1. Who is making this list of Dementia patients and psychologically disordered individuals, to whom is it reported, how does the pre-purchase "red flag" work, and who executes the search and seizure of those weapons already in their possession? Are all weapons included in the prohibition and seizure? Are family members mandated to "report" and, in the event they fail or mishandle the reporting, are they liable for any resulting injury? Mental health providers? Geriatricians? GP? Friends, employers, colleagues, children...?

2. How do we define "major psychological disorders"?

3. Does your research indicate that all/most/many of those found to commit gun violence are "off their meds"?

4. Beyond these laws, how do you see your suggestion being drafted and implemented?

 https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

At a minimal level I'm good with just establishing a system allowing family or friends to file a report to get the process started.  Honestly, I'm not familiar with how the laws are set up everywhere, I'm sure it's a complete mishmash and this isn't an issue that concerns me enough to spend time researching it.  I just know that they tried to pass a law  along those lines here in Michigan 10-15 years ago and the local NRA came out against it like they were trying to cut the trigger fingers off of everyone under the aegis of "who knows what they'll try to take away next!!"

In Michigan the only way you can be restricted is if you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness.  That leaves a LOT of open ground since about the only way that happens (here at least) is if you commit a crime and plead mental defect.

And when I talk about taking guns away from people, ideally I'm not talking about the government just straight up seizing them.  Forcing them to give them to a relative works just fine for me.  Seems like a better option than forcing kids to "steal" the weapons from parents when their judgement starts slipping.  (as my dad had to do with my great grandfather when he went from sitting outside "hunting" squirrels in a lawn chair to shooting at them through the windows, to shooting at them through the windows without always remembering to open them first)

[yknot]

I would have appreciated a way to get my aunt's shotgun away from her before she started pointing it at me from her bedroom door.  

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, elitts said:

At a minimal level I'm good with just establishing a system allowing family or friends to file a report to get the process started. 

Is this a statement to the effect that, "S/he is a danger to herself and/or others"? Who gets the report and is it filed under penalty of perjury as to the facts stated? It has to be a verified statement of some kind. Is this the preemptory "red flag" process, the confiscation trigger or both? 

31 minutes ago, elitts said:

I just know that they tried to pass a law  along those lines here in Michigan 10-15 years ago

I don't know a ton about this but would like to read the bill.

31 minutes ago, elitts said:

In Michigan the only way you can be restricted is if you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness.

What is the restriction, how broad and does it have a sunset or expiration clause and/or conditions for retraction?

33 minutes ago, elitts said:

In Michigan the only way you can be restricted is if you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness. That leaves a LOT of open ground since about the only way that happens (here at least) is if you commit a crime and plead mental defect.

It does, but drawing these lines is very complex in my opinion. 

38 minutes ago, elitts said:

And when I talk about taking guns away from people, ideally I'm not talking about the government just straight up seizing them.  Forcing them to give them to a relative works just fine for me.  Seems like a better option than forcing kids to "steal" the weapons from parents when their judgement starts slipping. 

I think there is a big assumption here around the fundamental requirement of observant, caring family and friends. Fortunately for me and others I've "run with" over the course of my struggles, most of us had people sequester weapons when they had a hint of trouble. In all of those cases it was about a "danger to self." One of my friends, my NA sponsor, was a vet and very good at projecting confidence and model recovery behavior. No one thought to remove his weapons from his home. As it happened, he used his shotgun to end his life while huddled in his sleeping bag in a concrete drainage pipe by the side of the road. One of my friends called me yesterday to say she had locked away the one gun in their home. Her new to recovery husband has suicidal ideation and others-focused rage on a cyclic basis. I offered to fetch it into one of my safes. I am not a disinterested or dispassionate debater on this topic. I am very interested, personally invested and vexed. I need to start printing and seriously reviewing the research, not that anyone is going to ask me for my suggestions. I appreciate yours.

[elitts]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Is this a statement to the effect that, "S/he is a danger to herself and/or others"? Who gets the report and is it filed under penalty of perjury as to the facts stated? It has to be a verified statement of some kind. Is this the preemptory "red flag" process, the confiscation trigger or both? 

I don't know a ton about this but would like to read the bill.

What is the restriction, how broad and does it have a sunset or expiration clause and/or conditions for retraction?

It does, but drawing these lines is very complex in my opinion. 

 

I agree there's a lot to discuss in any gun control regulation, and most of the issues are complex, particularly given the fact that the cat most certainly can't be stuffed back in the bag.

I'd just love there to be a reasonable conversation about what kinds of controls make sense and are reasonable without the more hardcore folks sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting their eyes and screaming "God and the 2nd amendment said I get my guns!" over and over until people give up.

[fred8033]

22 minutes ago, elitts said:

I just know that they tried to pass a law  along those lines here in Michigan 10-15 years ago and the local NRA came out against it like they were trying to cut the trigger fingers off of everyone under the aegis of "who knows what they'll try to take away next!!"

In Michigan the only way you can be restricted is if you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness. 

No humor, but I've had relatives that did similar.  Older relatives that protected their garden with a BB gun or 22 from the kitchen.  

My natural reaction is to defend any person or group that is constantly beat-up / vilified / demonized by others.  It does not mean I agree with them.  I just hate society lifting itself up by trying to label another group or individual evil. 

Opposition is broader than NRA.  Here are two examples.

• NAMI
  •  https://www.nami.org/Advocacy/Policy-Priorities/Responding-to-Crises/Extreme-Risk-Protection-Orders
  • "NAMI supports Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) that focus on specific, current behaviors and evidence-based risk factors for violence. NAMI opposes any ERPO laws that target, single out, or discriminate against people with mental health conditions."
  • "Most people with serious mental illness are never violent toward others and are more often victims of violence than perpetrators. Moreover, only 4% of violent acts in the U.S. are attributed to mental illness. Research tells us that other factors — such as a history of violence, misuse of alcohol or drugs, or prior convictions for violent misdemeanors — are greater predictors of violence."
• The Hill .... biased, but interesting points ... 
  • https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/319859-nra-the-mentally-ill-have-gun-rights-too/
  •  

[ThenNow]

48 minutes ago, elitts said:

I'd just love there to be a reasonable conversation about what kinds of controls make sense and are reasonable without the more hardcore folks sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting their eyes and screaming "God and the 2nd amendment said I get my guns!" over and over until people give up.

Yes, Likewise, enough with "guns are evil, only law enforcement and military should have guns (but let's defund the police, reduce our military and ignore the facts evidencing blanket restrictions don't work while we're at it) and I will 'stand with' the families (while I stand on the bodies of their children to signal my virtue)" while it happens again.