Water guns

[Oak Tree]

It's right there in the online GS22 in the unauthorized activities.

 

"Pointing any type of firearm or simulated firearm at any individual is unauthorized. Scout units may plan or participate in paintball, laser tag or similar events where participants shoot at targets that are neither living nor human representations."

 

A deer representation looks to be fine.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I think RichardB has made it clear that he's respondin' on the forums as a scouting volunteer and not in his official capacity, eh? Yeh can't expect officials to offer "official" guidance outside of official channels, eh? And it's worth rememberin' national just provides program materials for units and program franchising support and a hiring pool for councils. Everyone still has to think for themselves.

 

I think by any rational reading of da G2SS plain text language, a simulated firearm includes squirt guns if it includes laser tag guns. Those two things look more like each other than they resemble a firearm, eh? And both are clearly designed to simulate "shooting" at other people. Same with marshmallow guns and whatnot. So it doesn't surprise me at all that multiple councils are banning squirtguns. And to be fair, both da hypothesized reasons for this whole paragraph in the unauthorized activity list apply: da concern over lessening muzzle control protocol for real guns and the concern of public perceptions if the scouts are organizing large squirt gun combat operations (or "assassin" games) as some camps seem to be.

 

Again, my understandin' is that H&S wanted to repeal this silly prohibition but someone up da chain (and not in Risk Management) reversed 'em. That's why it's one of da only "safety" rules that has nuthin' to do with safety. But like everything, it's all a bit opaque.

 

Anyway, I don't think it's reasonable to expect RichardB to comment under da circumstances, especially if yeh want an "official" answer. Let's let the fellow hang around and be an ordinary Joe. After all, he's da first guy in Irving to peek out of da bunker into the connected world, eh? It would be a durn shame to frighten him off.

 

Beavah

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

Let's not be too quick to blame risk management either.

 

Another plausible explanation as to why this rule continues to exist is that for decades (I believe about 10 of them now, if I do my math right), the BSA has had at least one, very consistent message regarding guns. That message has been "don't point guns at other people".

 

I can see folks further up the chain stuggling to decide if allowing "simulated firearms" to be pointed at other people sends a mixed signal and deciding that they'd rather not try to explain why it's not ok to point a gun at someone but it is ok to point a water pistol that looks like a realistic .45 (such as I had when I was a lad), or a cap gun (had one that looked like a snub-nosed .38) at someone and just say that pointing any gun, real or not, simulated or not, is not allowed.

[Beavah]

I can see folks further up the chain stuggling to decide if allowing "simulated firearms" to be pointed at other people sends a mixed signal

 

Yah, like I said, da two rationales for this rule that people speculate on are that either pointing toy guns somehow breaks down muzzle control/awareness for real firearms, or that boys running around playing "war-games" is bad for PR. It's all just speculation, eh? There's no evidence to support either claim, and no evidence that either claim is the real rationale for the obtuse paragraph. And the BSA does advertise "simulated guns pointed at simulated humans" video games.

 

For all we know, someone in Irving just got pissed that the Laser Tag Business Association didn't give a big enough FOS donation. That would even make more sense.

 

Beavah's

 

 

[shortridge]

Beavah,

 

If National's top health and safety professional can't comment in his official capacity, then he shouldn't be poking his head into health & safety threads, tossing a comment out, and running away, eh? That's neither constructive nor helpful.

 

My council's SE is also a registered Scouter, a volunteer, with his son's troop. You can bet that when he attends summer camp, he can't just put on his volunteer's hat and not be the SE for a week. He can try, but it's simply not possible. Ditto Richard. If he wants to participate and make hit-and-run, sarcastic comments about discussions here, he can't simply say "Oh, I'm just another Scouter, I'm not talking for National." As Col. Sherman T. Potter would say, bullhockey.

 

Richard *could* have come on here anonymously and posted comments to try to help reduce some of the misinformation out there. No one would have known the difference. *He chose* to post under his own name, include his full name in at least one post - I wouldn't have known who he was if it wasn't for that - and mention "someone [sending] us the question." He thus created an identity here linked to his professional identity. He can't walk that back now.

 

IMHO, you either stand behind what you say 100 percent of the time, or you don't speak up at all.

[RichardB]

Have found rarely does debate work on forums. Can provide guideance, point folks in the right direction, ask leading questions to get a little bit bigger scope out front, may or may not be able to say yes or no. In most cases it depends is probably the answer but if it has to be yes or no, and there is not a mitagation of risk then no will be the answer.

 

I find myself using if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck then it is probably a duck often these days.

 

Want a protocol - ask your council (H&S / RM / Program folks). They or you still have questions fill one in. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GotQuestions.aspx

 

Want to research H&S / RM - i.e. scouting safely issues: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety.aspx

 

Take names - ask the right folks - most of the time there is an answer. Why may not always be readily apparent and some things you all may never no why by design.

 

Richard (Sweating at camp this week)

[packsaddle]

At risk of blowing his cover, there has been another pro here in the past under the moniker of dsteele. Dave was fairly active and (I'm guessing here) he might have made the same observation that Richard made regarding debate. I'm just hoping Dave is still lurking out there somewhere, he seemed to be a reasonable person.

But I agree with what Richard just wrote about debate in these forums. It isn't perfect but the fact that someone who feels strongly about something can't be shouted down or interrupted (save for Godwin's Law), it is probably a better debate forum than the so-called 'debates' we use as TV entertainment at intervals of 2,4, and 6.

At any rate, I like the fact that there are diverse opinions. I actually learn stuff that way. And it's fun too.

[shortridge]

Richard -

 

You referred to a question sent to and a reply sent by your office.

 

What did the reply say?

 

Did it merely point people to the aforementioned vaguely written G2SS section?

 

Really, that's all we want to know. A straight answer would be nice.

[bnelon44]

"Really, that's all we want to know. A straight answer would be nice."

 

I think the answer is read what is written, it is pretty obvious that any toy gun counts if it is pointed at another human being. The reason seems clear enough too. We don't teach Scouts to play war. We are not a paramilitary organization. Never were, never will be. If you want to play war, then play it outside of Scouting.

 

What is going on here is that some people don't want to take no for an answer and are willing to argue about it until the cows come home. Same argument surrounds laser tag and paint ball.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah]

In most cases it depends is probably the answer but if it has to be yes or no, and there is not a mitagation of risk then no will be the answer.

 

Yah, hmmm... I can't wait to see da risk mitigation plan for marshmallow guns. .

 

Seriously, lad, do yeh think we're all completely daft? That da average SM won't stop boys who have igniters rigged to their marshmallow guns or cubs who are runnin' around with water pistols near a cliff?

 

I find myself sympathizing with shortridge. If "it depends" is the right answer, then just say that, for heavens' sake. If the answer is "you're the leader of record, you know your boys, your families, and your local conditions, use your brain", then say that. That would be refreshing for 90% of da volunteers, and avoid da confusion. For the other 10%, just say "if you're uncomfortable makin' the call on your own, that's a sign that you should get more training or hire a professional guide before yeh do this activity."

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

The reason seems clear enough too. We don't teach Scouts to play war. We are not a paramilitary organization. Never were, never will be. If you want to play war, then play it outside of Scouting.

 

Nonsense. I defy yeh to find a single sentence anywhere in any BSA publication that gives that (or any) reason. Here in this thread CalicoPenn and others have offered what they felt were "clear enough", and they weren't the same as yours.

 

Fact is, war games have been part of Scouting since its inception. What do yeh think Capture the Flag is, pray tell?

 

That's why it's always better to give reasons and explanations than just state prohibitions, eh? Because reasons and explanations help everyone learn and inform their own judgment. If the real purpose is to ban war-games, then we need to stop Capture the Flag, but squirt gun shenanigans on a hot day might be just fine. If da perceived risk is that young, excitable LEOs might shoot a kid who brandishes a toy, then we need to teach boys only to play on private property like a scout camp or paintball place and not run around the neighborhood, and always to use bright colored toys. If da risk is that toys somehow make kids more likely to point a real firearm the wrong way, then we need to do more serious training with real firearms so that boys unequivocally know the difference. If it's a belief that toy guns lead to boys becoming violent sociopaths, then we know we also need to ban most video games at the lock-in.

 

Any one of these would be more clear than da general "simulated firearm" paragraph as worded.

 

Just like First Aid, eh? We teach the why and the when along with the what, because it's da only way that works.

 

Beavah

[bnelon44]

G2SS makes it quite clear, you don't point a simulated fire arm at anyone else. Period. You know who does that? The US Army does that and paramilitary cadet corpes do that. Well, we are not a paramilitary organization and we don't do that.

 

And yea, we never were a paramilitary organization and the BSA has been fighting this since day one.

 

Remember the old drills? UK Scouting had those, I think they encouraged them. BSA tried to erradicate them early on. Especially after the problem with US Scouts. Well we were successful at doing so but it took decades. Now we are simply going the next step.

 

Again, the purpose of the policy is clear to anyone who has eyes to see.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah]

You know who does that?

 

Yah, sure. Every American lad who has ever played cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians, or alien invasion... or even Harry Potter, with its death-dealing wands. . Seriously, yeh have to go pretty deep into Quaker circles to find boys who have never pointed a simulated firearm at anyone.

 

Besides, doesn't the U.S. Army also use a hand salute for the flag? In fact aren't hand salutes for the flag pretty much reserved for those folks who point real firearms at other humans? Just sayin'

 

B

[bnelon44]

Because kids want to play at paramilitary games doesn't mean the BSA has to make it a part of our program. Anyway, you wanted to know the reason for the policy, I told it to you.

 

As I said, this isn't a matter of not knowing why the policy is there, it is a matter of not agreeing and wanting to argue about it.

 

[SSScout]

Whoa, Beav... "deep in Quaker circles..." indeed.

Full disclosure: For those of you who haven't gleaned it from my previous posts, I are a Quaker, Jamboree Chaplain and all.

Our Yearly Meeting summer camps are famous for their "capture the flag " games, taking up acres of woods in the process. The camps are all about building community and acceptance. In our games, it ain't always about winning, but HOW you win. Everybody plays, the team captains (sometimes four teams at a time!) take and use everyone on their team. And here is the defining thing, which should be applied liberally to the G2SS definitions: We are not pretending to kill anyone. Paintball, lazertag, and the like do EXACTLY that, and that is why they are verbotten.

Here's another game we play, both at the camps and at several Friends schools I help with: "Jugs". Two (or more!) teams. Each has some number of "jugs" (could be sweaters, tennis balls, five gallon buckets, or what have you). These items are "stored" in a corner of the field or basketball court. Each team tries to grab the other team's jugs, and transport them to their own

store house. If a team has no more jugs in their store, they are "out". If a teammember is tagged on the wrong side of the half way line, they must stay on that side, IN THAT SPOT, until they are tagged by a teammember from their side.

Various variations appear depnding on the venue, but those are the basic rules.

Chess is about war, yes? Even checkers. Even Soccer and American Football. We do not ban those. It is the idea of killing that pushes things too far.. The typical (no, not typical. EVERYONE of them) paintball game center is designed to simulate the ambush and killing of your opponent. No other description comes close.

As to the water"gun", I did not know the dividing line had gone that far. The garden hose nozzle serves the same purpose, only the volume is different. I would argue that the multi colored water pistol is a little less like a killing tool than a bow and arrow aimed at a target, or a BB airgun directed similarly, but our purpose there is hand-eye skill learned and pride taken in.

Are we agin war? Absolutely, for any reason, in any form. Christ says so, we think. But we are more in favor of RUNNING and having fun and helping our kids learn to think around problems and see the advantage of teamwork and cooperation.

 

Does that help?(This message has been edited by SSScout)