?

Log in

Parents - Scouts Canada
May 16th, 2007
03:05 pm
[gnaremoob]

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Parents
Found in the paper a couple of days ago. Thought that I would share!

With the past couple of years full of school shootings the issues of gun use is a touchy one. IMHO teaching youth about gun safety and shooting pellet guns at targets is not giving them a licence to kill. A little knowledge never hurt anyone. I don't know.

Scout badge criticized as 'licence to kill'


Agent 007-style memento leaves Cub's mom shaken
May 11, 2007 04:30 AM
Carola Vyhnak
Staff reporter

Cale Northey went to a Scouts Canada camp to learn about gun safety. He came back with a "licence to kill."

That's how his parents view the badge the 11-year-old brought home from a target shooting event in Oshawa last weekend.

The badge features an Agent 007-type figure pointing a gun with a red target over his heart.

"I think it's terrible," said Cale's mother, Jane Northey. "We've got kids shooting up everyone these days. What kind of message are we sending them? This badge is a licence to kill sponsored by Scouts Canada."

The event for Whitby Scouts involved a target-shooting competition using pellet guns and included instruction on safety.

"It was exciting because my mom never lets me use guns," said Cale, who's been a Cub for three years. "We learned you have to be really safe with them and not point them anywhere else besides the target, and that they're very dangerous."

Northey, a teacher, said she wrestled with the decision to let Cale attend but relented so he could learn "just how dangerous these weapons really are." She was shocked when she saw the badge.

When she complained to Debra Yeomans, Whitby-area commissioner for Scouts Canada's White Pine Council, she was told the badge was voted on by leaders who perceived it as something "cool" the youngsters would love.

Yeomans told her they wouldn't recall it because one person saw it as offensive, Northey said.

Contacted by the Star, however, Yeomans said she knew nothing about the badge and didn't know who did.

Then she hung up.

But the national office for the country's leading youth organization had a different response.

"It's totally inappropriate," spokesperson Heidi Vincent said from Ottawa after seeing an emailed image of the badge.

"It's been pulled."

She said the crest was an "isolated incident" created by "well-meaning individuals who didn't anticipate the inappropriateness" of the design. It's not part of the organization's regular set of merit badges.

Scout leaders will be asked to get the crests back from the kids who received them at the camp, Vincent said. She didn't know how many had been given out.

Shooting range competitions are part of the regular program offered by Scouts Canada, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary, Vincent said. They're held across the country under "strict supervision."


~ http://www.thestar.com/News/article/212846

Current Mood: grumpygrumpy

(34 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:commander_keen
Date:May 16th, 2007 08:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
i love the mixed message from SC. I believe there was nothing wrong with the badge, nor was it inappropriate of the scouter to create said badge. The kid obviously knew that guns are dangerous and as long as he can see the difference between real life and movies, there is absolutely nothing wrong here. the Mother is at fault for being an overprotective whiney mother, the kid is 11, he needs to grow up.
[User Picture]
From:gnaremoob
Date:May 16th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thats an awesome av!
[User Picture]
From:commander_keen
Date:May 17th, 2007 01:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
thanks!
[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 16th, 2007 09:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If the crest (it's not a badge) actually said "Licence to kill" then I'd agree with the mother's outrage.. as well if the crest displayed an Agent 007-type figure pointing a gun with a red target over his heart, I would agree with the mother's outrage.. It was probably just stupidity on the leadership's part, not thinking of a different perception. I wouldn't consider that crest to be appropriate either.

But yes, the program is designed and implemented to teach the youth how to use the firearms safety & to teach that you do nto shoot another with them.

As a Range office from the Oshawa range at Camp Samac for many years now, I know what kind of training & what kind of safety & teaching emphasis is placed on this program.
[User Picture]
From:commander_keen
Date:May 17th, 2007 01:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
but that has nothing to do with it. Program needs to be delivered in a way that kids remember, and obviously the trip to the range inspired that and the badge simply give a logo that they already know and can relate to as a momento.



The mother is completely ignoring the kid, who clearly knows that guns are bad and that he probably thinks his scouters are the coolest in th world at the moment.

I've seen bages like this and really what's the harm? Yes guns are bad, James Bond? not so much. Kids were killing things his age, not too long ago. As long as he can separate fiction from reality it's okay.

[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 17th, 2007 01:48 am (UTC)
(Link)
Firstly, they are not shooting guns.. that's the thing, they are shooting RIFLES. James bond, shoots a pistol, which is a gun..

The harm? It's counteracting what the leaders are supposed to be teaching them. The crest (and it IS a crest, not a badge) does give the impression that firearms are for shooting people, to kil them, not marksmanship & sport which shoot harmless pieces of paper.
[User Picture]
From:gnaremoob
Date:May 17th, 2007 01:56 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think that the majority of kids know the difference. The ones that will fly off the handle are not going to be influenced by a crest. They will be influenced by the bullies who terrorize them.

I will officially join the camp of the "the mother is nuts" camp
[User Picture]
From:commander_keen
Date:May 17th, 2007 06:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
Gun/Rifle. Same terminology, yes there is a slight semantic difference but the same safety rules apply, and i'm sure that was taken into consideration.

You haven't seen the crest/badge whatever so how do you know what it gives off.

10 years ago this wouldn't of made the news, and it wouldn't of been an issue. Kids need to grow up sometime, and it seems that they just get mothered more and more as the years go by.
[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 17th, 2007 05:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
have YOU seen the crest?
[User Picture]
From:gnaremoob
Date:May 18th, 2007 02:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
I would like to see it!
[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 18th, 2007 06:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
me too.. I'll see if I can et my hands on it, or at least a scan ofi t..
[User Picture]
From:gnaremoob
Date:May 18th, 2007 06:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
awesomeness thanks!
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 26th, 2007 01:05 pm (UTC)

Correct terms

(Link)
It never ceases to amaze me how the press can A:) blow things out of proportion B:) be so inaccurate in their terminology

If the story had read " Mom upset over camp activity crest" I wonder if it would have even been read. It is the inappropriate use of terms misunderstood by the general public at large that is the problem especially when the term "gun" is used.

As an Aid I've included some definitions below.

Gun - 1 a: a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b: a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) c: a device that throws a projectile

Firearm = a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder — usually used of small arms

Rough Canadian legal definition of a firearm: Any device which throws a projectile at a velocity of greater than 500 feet per second (if I remember the velocity correctly)(this is why you dont need a license to purchase air rifles and they are NOT considered firearms)

Pistol - : a handgun whose chamber is integral with the barrel

Rifle - a shoulder Firearm with a rifled bore b: a rifled artillery piece

Air Rifle - a rifle whose projectile (as a BB or pellet) is propelled by compressed air or carbon dioxide

Target- A reference point to shoot at

Marksmanship - A persons skill at hitting a target

From reading the article I can at least see the kid got the message " We learned we have to be really safe and not point them anywhere but the target"

Mom on the other hand has no clue " I wanted him to learn just how dangerous these weapons really are" I hope she isn't an english teacher

Weapon - any instrument which is used for attacking others

My heartfelt thanks to the range officers who obviously got the safety message across, Its unfortunate that their efforts have been undermined at the expense of a sensationalized story full of inaccurate terms and a some what poor judgment call on choice of crest.
[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 26th, 2007 07:15 pm (UTC)

Re: Correct terms - *within the Canadian marksmanship community*

(Link)
*Definitions within the Canadian marksmanship community*

a firearm is not a weapon until it is used as a weapon.

a gun is a a portable firearm, yes, but a rifle is not very portable. *g* try transporting a rifle from home to the range & see how portable it is, or isn't :)

an air rifle is considered a capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant - the compressed air is considered an explosive charge..

But yes, the mother has NO clue. But I agree that the crest was inappropriate.

& on behalf of the rest of the other Range Safety Officers, You're welcome :)

I actually did talk with one of the two Range Master & he did think that message given from the crest was inconsistent with what they were taught and it was unfortunate that the mother blew everything out of proportion..
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 27th, 2007 06:58 pm (UTC)

Re: Correct terms - *within the Canadian marksmanship community*

(Link)
I've had to start and restart this reply a number of times.....
and I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around your statements......

As I am unaware of what is taught within the Canadian Marksmanship community ( the name being ambiguous as marksmanship refers to the ability of being able to hits ones target which could be anything …paper, animal or person.) or based on your personal statements / experience. I would guess your referring to some sort of target shooting group. I will have to stand on the more widely accepted terms of the Canadian Firearms Safety course, history and Canadian law which would preclude any statements of a shooting organisation..

Lets start with History

The term gun is often used as a synonym for firearm, but in specialist use has a restricted sense—referring only to an artillery piece with a relatively high muzzle velocity, such as a field gun, a tank gun, an anti-tank gun, or a gun used in the delivery of naval gunfire. Guns are distinct from howitzers and mortars, which have lower muzzle velocities and, typically, higher trajectories.

A firearm is a device that can be used as a weapon that fires either single or multiple projectiles propelled at high velocity by the gases produced through rapid, confined burning of a propellant. This process of rapid burning is technically known as deflagration. In older firearms, this propellant was typically black powder, but modern firearms use smokeless powder, cordite, or other propellants. Most modern firearms (with the notable exception of smoothbore shotguns) have rifled barrels to impart spin to the projectile for improved flight stability. Hand-held firearms, like rifles, carbines, pistols and other small firearms are rarely called "guns" in the restricted sense among specialists. Machine guns fire small caliber ammunition (generally 14.5 mm or smaller), and many machine guns are crew served firearms, requiring the services of more than one crewman, just like artillery guns. Generally, an automatic firearm designed for a single user is referred to as an automatic rifle. Other terms, including "firearm" itself, have been defined in specialized ad hoc ways by various legislation.

For handguns and long guns, ( further defining the type of firearm) the projectile is a bullet or, in historical cannons, a cannonball. The projectile is fired by the burning of the propellant, but in small arms rarely contains explosives itself. For modern artillery the projectile is a shell, which nearly always contains explosives.

Firearms are sometimes referred to as small arms. Small arms are firearms which can be carried by a single individual. According to international conventions governing the Laws of War, small arms are defined (with some exceptions) as firearms which fire a projectile not in excess of 15 mm (0.60 inches) in diameter. Small arms are aimed visually at their targets by hand using optical sights. The range of accuracy for small arms is generally limited to about one mile (1600 m), usually considerably less, although the current record for a successful Sniper attack is slightly more than 1.5 miles (2.4 km) Currently held by A canadian Sniper

From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 27th, 2007 07:01 pm (UTC)

Continued -Re: Correct terms - *within the Canadian marksmanship community*

(Link)
Artillery guns are much larger than these firearms, mounted on a movable carriage, having bores of up to 18 inches (46 cm) and possibly weighing many tons. Artillery can be accurate at ranges of up to about 26 miles (42 km) and, with some notable exceptions (e.g., tank guns), are aimed using altitude/azimuth settings. Strictly speaking, such weapons are not firearms.

From the Canadian Fire Arms Act
a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon, as well as anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm.

The following are some weapons and devices that meet the definition of a firearm but that are deemed not to be firearms for purposes of the Firearms Act and related offences in the Criminal Code. Some of these items are exempted from the definition only if they were designed exclusively for a specific purpose and are intended to be used exclusively for that purpose by the person who possesses it. However, all of the items listed below are considered to be firearms if used in a criminal or negligent manner.

Air guns and other barreled weapons designed to have:
A muzzle velocity of 152.4 meters (500 feet) per second or less and/or
A muzzle energy of 5.7 joules (4.2 foot pounds) or less.

From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 27th, 2007 07:01 pm (UTC)

Re: Continued -Re: Correct terms - *within the Canadian marksmanship community*

(Link)
So guns are still in use to day though the term GUN is correctly applied to field artillery pieces or ships guns. What the general public and the press use the term gun ( incorrectly) for are actually and correctly identified as rifles, pistols and shotguns which are various types of firearms which can be further broken down into either military or sporting models , as well as either hand or shoulder held.

“Firstly, they are not shooting guns.. that's the thing, they are shooting RIFLES. James bond, shoots a pistol, which is a gun..”

So to be accurate and correct, the boys were not shooting guns, they were shooting air rifles, which under Canadian law are not classed as firearms unless the muzzle velocity of the particular air rifle being used exceeds a certain speed. ( 500 feet per second )

“a firearm is not a weapon until it is used as a weapon”

I’ll Give you that one as my original statement should have been clearer.

“a gun is a a portable firearm, yes, but a rifle is not very portable. *g* try transporting a rifle from home to the range & see how portable it is, or isn't :)”

Leaving aside the incorrect use of gun - a rifle is very easily portable both to the range, the field in cases of hunting or down main street. Simply follow the transportation rules laid out in the Canadian Firearms ( See no “gun” there either :) ) Act. ( actually there are no regulations laid out for the transportation for rifles in the act, Though there used to be for the transportation of Restricted firearms ( handguns)

Technically all you would have to do is unload it and trigger lock it . There are currently no restrictions on transportation of “ Long Guns” ( damn lawyers) you could carry it openly, legally down main st . should you wish to , Now I’m not saying you wouldn’t attract attention and would probably have to answer some questions and the local constabulary would probably ask you not to but you could do it. The only restriction I can remember is for hunting purposes where it has to be encased a half hour before sunrise and a half hour after sunset Now that being said there may be both provincial and municiple laws which could further restrict movement but in general terms there are none.

“an air rifle is considered a capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant - the compressed air is considered an explosive charge..”

Not even sure where you were going with this one …..see above definition.

Now I will also state for the record that while I agree with the current Firearms laws ( which I follow, My firearms storage currently exceeds what is required by law and when I do transport they are unloaded, encased, and trigger locked with the Ammuniation secured seperatly in its own locked case) and their strict enforcement, along with all the other firearms laws that already were in effect ( the ones that are plea bargained away in most criminal cases) The reasoning behind them is flawed, more laws will not stop crime. But that’s a whole other discussion :)

A registered collector, Licienced Hunter,Informed parent
Firearms saftey = Knowlage
[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 29th, 2007 10:33 pm (UTC)

Re: Correct terms - *within the Canadian marksmanship community*

(Link)
which crest are you showing in your icon?
[User Picture]
From:gnaremoob
Date:May 29th, 2007 10:35 pm (UTC)

Re: Correct terms - *within the Canadian marksmanship community*

(Link)
they are showing the crest in question. The one from the article
[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 29th, 2007 10:35 pm (UTC)

Re: Correct terms - *within the Canadian marksmanship community*

(Link)
kinda hard to see. *g* maybe should put on my glasses *g*
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 26th, 2007 01:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*reaches in knapsack pulls out can opener and can of worms*

Why are guns (excuse me "Firearms") bad?

Actually the message I got is the Kid got understood and remembered the point of the program.....SAFETY !!!
[User Picture]
From:gnaremoob
Date:May 26th, 2007 01:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
yes, but I think that you are missing the point that some parents are crazy ;)
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 26th, 2007 01:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
LOL Thought that was obivious enough with out bashing her again, I loved the reply letter a couple of days later.The poor kid is going to have a rough time over this.
[User Picture]
From:commander_keen
Date:May 26th, 2007 08:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
if that's the badge in question, how the hell is that inappropriate?

where did you find it?
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 27th, 2007 09:07 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yes that's the one, the online story does not have the pic of the kid holding the crest that appeared in the hard copy of the newspaper. A friend of mine scanned the article and sent it to me because I'm the Program coordinator for an upcoming camporee and I am looking to have the same activity at the camp ( if I can find out what the requirements are and arrange for range personal and equipment) At this size you can make out the figure but not the cross hairs that appear over his heart. If you want to provide me with an email address I could forward a scan of the crest to you

BTW I'm Still waiting to open and debate that can of worms
Why are firearms bad? :)
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 27th, 2007 09:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
LOL I just had another thought If she was upset about a crest I wonder how she would feel if she knew that under Canadian Law a 12 year old can borrow and use any non restricted firearm ( rifle / shotgun ) and can also legally buy ammunition for that firearm.
[User Picture]
From:rilms
Date:May 17th, 2007 03:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
From a public relations perspective, the badge is totally out of line. I mean, come on, "a Agent 007-type figure pointing a gun with a red target over his heart."

If the badge was simply a a target, it would of been approiate. But, with a red target over a person's heart, that insuates that the guns would be pointed at people or people looking targets.

It may be the "cool" thing, but not the proper thing.

I agree that the crest wouldn't influance them, but look at it from a public relations view. How does the outside world see this.

And if it's "not part of the organization's regular set of merit badges", why does it exsist?

[User Picture]
From:commander_keen
Date:May 17th, 2007 06:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
because it's a badge(crest whatever) from an event, you get badges from camps all the time. I mean the only reason we got rid of putting a swastica on a badge, was because of the nazi party use of them

What's worse is the conflicting viewpoints from the official PR person and the White Pine council commisioner. That's what hurts the organization more. This is an isolated incident where yes the image maybe be offensive to some, but notice how she's the only one we've heard from, and that no one else from the group cared.
[User Picture]
From:rilms
Date:May 17th, 2007 02:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But look at the bad press it generated.
[User Picture]
From:neonrose5
Date:May 17th, 2007 05:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
or maybe they just didn't speak up or did see it.
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 26th, 2007 11:44 am (UTC)

Crest In question

(Link)
I have a scanned copy of the crest in Question (from the original news article if anyone is interested I am also looking for information on putting on such an event at an upcoming camp are there resources available for contacting range officers and other requirements, any help would be appreciated
[User Picture]
From:gnaremoob
Date:May 26th, 2007 01:38 pm (UTC)

Re: Crest In question

(Link)
It doesn't look that bad. It actually looks kinda cool
[User Picture]
From:commander_keen
Date:May 26th, 2007 08:54 pm (UTC)

Re: Crest In question

(Link)
it's nothing worst then what you would see for a poster for a bond movie, and the posters themselves are typically G rated.
From:tomahawkguy
Date:May 27th, 2007 03:19 pm (UTC)

Re: Crest In question

(Link)
I agree that the crest content in its self isn't offensive, though the unintentional message it sends is certainly contradictory to everything that was taught at the range, unfortunately these days when everything must be sterile and politically correct your going to upset someone somewhere, even though your intentions were to provide a unique and safe activity and a "cool" memento to remember it by.
My Website Powered by LiveJournal.com