dont mess with the boy scouts...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?_r=3&hp

OK, this is a joke, right? Where's the punch line? No one could seriously think that this is a good thing for kids as young as 14 to be doing.

looks legit. I thought Deank was exaggerating, but....

Not really the Boy Scouts it's a coed group .

But wow...Explorer Scouts have come a long way since I was that age.

Explorer Scouts used to be only for those 18-23, and was an extension of the Boy/Girl Scouts for those too old to be in that program anymore.

Mostly they did hunting/guiding, etc...but would do training on various things too.

I never joined the Explorers (joined the Army instead)...but was learning about them throughout my years as a Scout/Scout Leader.

I'm quite impressed with the discipline they are giving these kids. Perhaps it's something that should be considered mandatory (if not military service) to help discipline and train the youth for respect of people and society.

the problem with mandatory training is that some kids will only learn how to better handle themselves against police with training like this, if they dont also have the drive to be a good asset to the community to begin with.

the problem with mandatory training is that a so-called free society is about the freedom to choose to belong to a group.

The concept of some form of national service is one thing, but this article refers to insanity. Teaching kids as young as 14 CQB tactics with airsoft guns. Shouldn't these kids be out playing soccer instead?

wouldn't that be their choice?

Sue, I understand freedom of choice, but how appropriate is it for this type of activity for children. There are many cadet type programs, and I even saw the WPS is running one funded by the Kinsmen, but this is over the edge.
I was part of cadets when I was young and it was a great experience. They taught respect, discipline, leadership and it was in a military type setting. Our instructors were many Merchant Marine types from the war. You had no choice but to respect them. We did other things like the Red Cross Swimming program, Hunter Safety training, drill, semaphore, boatmanship (I still know how to tie a sheepshank) and we even had a course on citizenship which explained how government was organized.

The stuff in the article is just too extreme. It reminds me of the pictures of Hezbollah training kids to be terrorists and suicide bombers.

so we should not train our kids to defend against the crazy people? We should just let the crazy people win? Or by training our kids, that means the crazy people have already won?

Personally I think it's pretty great.
The article would seem to glorify the combat training, as that's what makes it a "story", but the discipline, respect, etc. that accompanies that...not to mention the trust and team-building required to reach that level.

Had an option like that been available for me at the high-school age...I probably would have opted for it. Most kids that age already have interest in weapons and combat (think playing cowboys & indians or cops & robbers as kids). When I was 14, I was taking jujitsu training with bos and other weapons. It was a private training studio, and I felt I was learning and enjoying the activity.

As adults, many of us look back at "military" training as combat skills...but it is so much more than that. They are not training these kids to kill. They are training them to work as a team, to handle difficult and dangerous situations, and to problem-solve in extreme situations.

I wrote a book (never published it) a few years ago about something similar to this (a bit more extreme though). Provided the leadership doing the training is not taking advantage of the kids, nor trying to put them into unacceptable situations...this type of training and discipline can only be a good thing.

I agree, many of my friends joined the army reserves the moment they were old enough. Many of them continued their carreer in the armed forces and served for some time.

FlyingRat wrote:the problem with mandatory training is that a so-called free society is about the freedom to choose to belong to a group.

How so?

Are kids (that age) allowed to not go to school? (the answer is "no") until they are 16 (and that differs from Province to State).

If a kid violates a law...are they confined? (ok...they should be) and forced to become part of a jail group?

In many jurisdictions, the "freedom of choice" does not apply till they are 18. And for some choices (drinking in the US for example) aged 21.

So how far of a stretch would it be to require youth to attend (and they could even choose) some sort of disciplinary program?
Cadet Training
Firefighter Training
Military Training

Something which requires the participant to learn respect for life & society. One which helps them understand the "acceptable" rules and standards. And one which could teach them skills they can apply to be contributing members of society in the future, no matter what job they take.

1. Every heard of home-schooling?

2. Violating the law amount to choosing to join the "jail group".

3. Granted, a child's "choice" is determined by the parent/guardian.

Those training programs sound great! Encouragement and incentive to join is enough - no need to force people to join them tho. To do that just ruins the experience of those that want to be there.

FlyingRat wrote:1. Every heard of home-schooling?

2. Violating the law amount to choosing to join the "jail group".

3. Granted, a child's "choice" is determined by the parent/guardian.

Those training programs sound great! Encouragement and incentive to join is enough - no need to force people to join them tho. To do that just ruins the experience of those that want to be there.

1. Home schooling is still an education choice. It's EITHER home schooling or get your butt to school. And home schooling guidelines must be followed to qualify.

2. And so is choosing some other form of discipline. Everyone cries that the parents aren't disciplining their children enough, and they expect teachers to carry the weight. Basically it would let the youth choose which form of service they'd like to be part of.

3. No comment for 3 .

Deank wrote:I agree, many of my friends joined the army reserves the moment they were old enough. Many of them continued their carreer in the armed forces and served for some time.

I joined the reserves 6 days after my 16th birthday. (Those were the old days, and I wasenrolled in the regular force when I was 17, but I served only with parental consent) That being said, theres a difference between a 16 year old and a 14 yr old and what they should be taught.

Freeman wrote:

Deank wrote:I agree, many of my friends joined the army reserves the moment they were old enough. Many of them continued their carreer in the armed forces and served for some time.

I joined the reserves 6 days after my 16th birthday. (Those were the old days, and I wasenrolled in the regular force when I was 17, but I served only with parental consent) That being said, theres a difference between a 16 year old and a 14 yr old and what they should be taught.

To an extent...yes.
But what also has to be taken into account is the population base, and the demand in the area.
If they know those kids would join a gang if they have no other option...they would probably lose them to the gang.
If the population for their local chapter isn't high enough, then expanding the normal parameters is acceptable to allow a more vibrant unit to exist.

One of the places I lived in New York State, the school was K-12. It was built large enough to keep everyone separated within the school, but it was a "regional" school, and some kids traveled over 30 miles to attend each day. There just weren't enough kids in the area/region to support multiple schools.

This may be no different, create a group for young adults/youth to participate to allow development and discipline. I'm sure there are activities which the 16-18 year olds do, which the 14-15 do not, and vice versa.

Locally, if any of you want your sons or daughters to join a great organization which helps develop discipline and leadership skills...let me know. The DeMolay and Jobs Daughters are always looking for new members (ages 12-21)...and no military training .

Excellent point AGEsAces about the gangs getting them young.

Deank wrote:the problem with mandatory training is that some kids will only learn how to better handle themselves against police with training like this, if they dont also have the drive to be a good asset to the community to begin with.

We defnitely want to get to kids when they are at those impressionable ages. The attraction of gangs is not unlike what attracts kids to legitimate organizations. They need to belong, be part of a group that accepts them, have some sense of fulfillment, its just the antisocial objectives of gangs that are the issue.

I look at the soccer club that I'm part of. The kids eat up the fact that they are part of something. The club track suit is a real status symbol. I've seen kids wearing them in 90+ degree weather just so everyone knows who they are. I'm not slamming the Explorers group, I just think some of the actitivies described are over the top.

For once I agree geez it is the earth moving .