www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:It's law enforcement. From the sound of it they do as much arresting the perpetrators as anything. They're not teaching them to shoot first period.

Just as there are soccer moms, there are Explorers dads, who attend the competitions, man the hamburger grill and donate their land for the simulated marijuana field raids. In their training, the would-be law-enforcement officers do not mess around, as revealed at a recent competition on the state fairgrounds here, where a Ferris wheel sat next to the police cars set up for a felony investigation.
Their hearts pounding, Explorers moved down alleys where there were hidden paper targets of people pointing guns, and made split-second decisions about when to shoot.

Mark wrote:Yeah, I was a teenager, and my mom wouldn't let me play ANY sport for fear I'd get hurt.

Well, that's a Jewish mother for ya. Of course, that's escessive. My primary concern isn't just getting hurt (although this sort of thing obviously has a MUCH higher assumed risk than, say, trying out for the basketball team) but in teaching children to live with a mindset of hunting other humans. Aside from the obvious maladjustments, it's only a matter of time until someone trained that way decides to expand their definition of "viable target" to include an innocent victim.

Tyyr wrote:It's law enforcement. From the sound of it they do as much arresting the perpetrators as anything. They're not teaching them to shoot first period.

These kids are not the right people to be performing law enforcement. This is too young to master the nuances of thought, reaction, and decision involved. Besides, as I said, it's teaching kids of an impressionable age that it's OK to hunt people.

Hunt people? Really? You got teaching them to hunt people out of that article? Ok, wow.

This explains why my troop spent so much time training at fort Meade instead of Sullin like most troops around here...

It was cool being 14 and firing soooooooooo many different guns.

I don't see the problem with it, assuming the parents know this is what their kids are being taught.

Hell, I wish I'd gotten better training when I was younger. I was twelve years old before I held a gun.

And, Mikey, people who would kill innocent people will do so one way or the other. I'd argue that it's better to teach the non-psychopaths how to defend themselves properly.

Mikey wrote:
These kids are not the right people to be performing law enforcement. This is too young to master the nuances of thought, reaction, and decision involved. Besides, as I said, it's teaching kids of an impressionable age that it's OK to hunt people.

I'd be a little more confident of this program if I knew how in depth they go with risk assessment. There's more to being a soldier or a cop then, "he's got a gun/is brown/has drugs...bang!"

Mind you I find this whole thing to be rather amusing. Rather then increase border patrol or law enforcement funding, we can have our kids do it for us! Which on it's own isn't a bad idea but you know some half-wit at the State or Federal level is going to use it as an excuse to avoid funding the mentioned programs.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I'd be a little more confident of this program if I knew how in depth they go with risk assessment.

Agreed.

Cpl Kendall wrote:/is brown/

Deepcrush wrote:It was cool being 14 and firing soooooooooo many different guns.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I don't see the problem with it, assuming the parents know this is what their kids are being taught.

Hell, I wish I'd gotten better training when I was younger. I was twelve years old before I held a gun.

And, Mikey, people who would kill innocent people will do so one way or the other. I'd argue that it's better to teach the non-psychopaths how to defend themselves properly.

No arguments. If a kid is going to handle a gun - be it for range shooting, hunting - I'd far prefer he be taught very early how to do it right. However, I never got the impression that the gist of this program was for personal self-defense.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I'd be a little more confident of this program if I knew how in depth they go with risk assessment. There's more to being a soldier or a cop then, "he's got a gun/is brown/has drugs...bang!"

Exactly what I meant when I used the hyperbole (hyperbole, Tyyr!) about teaching these kids how to hunt people.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Mind you I find this whole thing to be rather amusing. Rather then increase border patrol or law enforcement funding, we can have our kids do it for us! Which on it's own isn't a bad idea but you know some half-wit at the State or Federal level is going to use it as an excuse to avoid funding the mentioned programs.

Well, there's the crux of the matter.

Thus why you avoid hyperbole when discussing things like this as it serves no useful purpose aside from mucking up the actual discussion.

Or, as a useful illustration. Kendall said it better, perhaps, but it was in essence the same point.

Surely you didn't think that I thought this program was teaching scouts to play "The Most Dangerous Game?"

To be perfectly honest I've found your mindset about this to be a bit on the extreme side the entire time. Since you didn't make it clear that you were speaking facetiously I chose to take what you said at face value. It's the internet, I don't get the benefit of the verbal and body language clues that would lead me to believe you were going over the top for the hell of it.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I'd be a little more confident of this program if I knew how in depth they go with risk assessment. There's more to being a soldier or a cop then, "he's got a gun/is brown/has drugs...bang!"

True, but on the other hand there are several references in the article to the students/campers arresting and apprehending rather than shooting. That leads me to believe they are teaching them some restraint on the use of deadly force. How much or just how I don't know and it would be interesting to get particulars.

Mind you I find this whole thing to be rather amusing. Rather then increase border patrol or law enforcement funding, we can have our kids do it for us! Which on it's own isn't a bad idea but you know some half-wit at the State or Federal level is going to use it as an excuse to avoid funding the mentioned programs.

That has about as much chance of happening as a reduction in the funding of training for the military because of the Boy Scouts.

Tyyr wrote: That has about as much chance of happening as a reduction in the funding of training for the military because of the Boy Scouts.

I realize I had misspoke/typed? What I had meant was increased funding. You'll have to forgive me but I see a lot of noise coming from the US about illegal immigration and terrorism but I don't see much being done about the former.

Our immigration policies are idiotic. Given that we're a nation of immigrants the whole "You're not a real American" thing is ridiculous. Unless you live on a reservation if you go back far enough all our ancestors came here on boats.

Besides, it's not the immigrants who live on welfare, are lazy, and don't work. That's the citizens.

Tyyr wrote:Our immigration policies are idiotic. Given that we're a nation of immigrants the whole "You're not a real American" thing is ridiculous. Unless you live on a reservation if you go back far enough all our ancestors came here on boats.

Besides, it's not the immigrants who live on welfare, are lazy, and don't work. That's the citizens.

You'll get no argument from me on those points.

"They're taking our jobs!"

Oh yeah Billy Bob? You really gunning for that fruit picking position. Got your hopes and dreams pinned on that janitorial job down town? Expecting to rise like a meteor through the organization once you start laying carpet? Gimme a fucking break.

When I hear of Cuban refugees being intercepted and turned back, containers full of Chinese sent back to China after they spent all their money and nearly died to get here, quotas and qualifications on who we let immigrate and who we don't I wanna throw up.