Comment by donw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by donw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I lack the outdoorsy know-how and wisdom to feel at ease on the backroads of the desert southwest.

This is one of the reasons that I am glad I was a Scout and spent a lot of time in the backcountry.

I grew up thinking that this is how everybody grows up, but having lived in several major world cities, it has never ceased to amaze me how few city-folk know any fundamental outdoor skills.

Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.

Spending that time "roughing it" really helps you appreciate the benefits of both preserving nature, as well as the wonders of modern civilization. It also builds some serious self-reliance skills, which have served me well in life.

Maybe we need a program similar to Scouting, but for adults that have lived all of their lives in or around cities? Would help to bridge the urban-rural divide in both directions. Does such a thing exist?

> Maybe we need a program similar to Scouting, but for adults that have lived all of their lives in or around cities? Would help to bridge the urban-rural divide in both directions. Does such a thing exist?

There are two good options for this, NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School) and Outward Bound. I went on an Outward Bound expedition where we kayaked for several days on Lake Superior, and I have a number of friends involved with NOLS. NOLS and Outward Bound are similar; they both teach outdoor skills in a group setting. Outward Bound has a little more emphasis on group dynamics, but they're both great programs and they offer a wide variety of courses in beautiful locations.

NOLS: http://www.nols.edu/

Outward Bound: http://www.outwardbound.org/

I think we should try to first make popular scouting organizations for children who are diverse, inclusive, and welcoming.

The Boy Scouts of America currently can't be supported by me no matter their merits because of their stances on gays and the non-religious.

I also don't support sex segregation in scouting.

Keep the BSofA for the people who want that sort of thing but let's support inclusive scouting organizations as well.

The national organization lifted its ban on openly gay leaders about a year ago.

I am an Eagle scout who was openly an atheist while going through the program. A lot of this depends on your local leadership; the national organization stays out of it.

The program is a great program as noted above, for all its flaws. If you have a child interested, you can have a huge effect on the local program simply by becoming involved.

I was politely asked to leave my local group under similar conditions (non-belief causing friction), though I was only a webelo at the time.

I would probably feel out the group first if you intend to do this, it wasn't a pleasant experience at the time.

> If you have a child interested, you can have a huge effect on the local program simply by becoming involved

Sorry but joining an organization that is openly exclusive to you and your values then trying to change it to be inclusive to you and change their core values seems very wrong. Having your child being an unwelcome outsider during your personal crusade. why not join, create, and support alternative scouting organizations that welcome you and your values?

Either approach is valid. Not everything is political. On paper the bsa may seem bad but in person you may realize your local troop only really cares about the outdoors aspect. I was in the bsa and it was just a bunch of kids doing kids stuff in the woods. homosexual and religious agendas were so foreign I never knew it was an issue until I read about it in college.

Even if your local troop doesn't enforce the official BSA policies... There are alternative scouting organizations that have different official policies. Why support one over the other if the other exists? Support alternative scouting organizations is all I am saying.

Agreed. Lord Baden-Powell would be very disappointed at the Boy Scouts as it exists today.

But I do seem to meet a large number of young adults that could benefit from a similar experience to Scouting, in terms of learning valuable life skills, building self-confidence, and as a way of broadening their experience outside of urban life.

> Lord Baden-Powell would be very disappointed at the Boy Scouts as it exists today.

Lord Baden-Powell as he was or a hypothetical version of him with modern morality applied?

"No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion....Religion seems a very simple thing: First: Love and Serve God. Second: Love and serve your neighbour." - from Scouting for Boys. And, generally, he seemed to consider that pretty important.

Scouting for Boys is basically what he started out with. He then lived on to nurture the organization into something else. Other life outlooks than his own, including atheism, was never really problematic. Otherwise it wouldn't have spread to muslims, jews, atheists and so on. All of this matters very little however, as Baden-Powell's ideas aren't gospel. The organization doesn't exist to teach hundred year old ideas about how boys should behave. (It's important to know that the national organizations have a lot of leeway in shaping their own program and the BSA is unique in a number of ways.)

> Baden-Powell's ideas aren't gospel

I'm not making any argument about what the Boy Scouts should or shouldn't do, but rather responding to the statement that Lord Baden-Powell would be disappointed by it or parts of it rejecting atheists, which is clearly false.

>Keep the BSofA for the people who want that sort of thing

Things like

>Selecting a campsite, leaving no trace when you leave, water purification and management, building and containing campfires, land navigation with a map and compass, how to safely use a rifle, knife use and maintenance, first aid... I learned all of these as a kid.

I suppose.

...and “no boy can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing his obligation to God.”

Sorry, this goes against my core beliefs and I couldn't perosnally support or send a child to such an organization no matter what their other merits may be.

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/11/02/beginning-next-y...

It really does depend on the troop.

I was a boy scout in the Bay Area and we had openly gay scouts and almost all of the kids and parents were atheist.

Even if your local troop didn't follow the original policies and mission statement of the organization doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't want to support the organization even if a rogue troop doesn't follow the official mission statement.

From my link above:

>What’s new is that beginning Jan. 1, 2016, every rank from Tenderfoot to Eagle Scout (plus Eagle Scout palms) will include a “duty to God” requirement

I'm an atheist, and scouts made a wonderful contribution to my life. I put my atheist kids into it, and they had a great time, too. It's a wonderful organization and great troops are the norm, not "rogue". I don't know if there were any gay kids among these pre-teens, and I didn't notice anyone who ever seemed to care. I've worked with Mormons on community service events: some of the finest people I've ever known. I don't believe in their God, but I believe in them and have no trouble getting along. I've been involved with sports in a Catholic organization. I've worked at companies that had some policies I disagreed with but that were a net positive in the world, in my opinion, and I hope I was a net positive for the company.

I'm not aware of any perfect scouting-like groups nor of any imperfect ones that, all things included, would be better for my own boys than the scouting group across the street.

I don't have to take umbrage at everything that has some relationship to something I don't agree with. I guess there is more that one kind of "inclusiveness".

Some people inside BSofA are trying to change that (I know one of them). Hopefully they'll prevail.

There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people. How would you convince them to take such a course?

Well, as adults that can make their own decision, that would be up to them, of course.

Hopefully this isn't too political, but I will try and answer your question.

Part of self-reliance is the ability to make your environment safe. This is why you learn first-aid, CPR, how to use a fire extinguisher, how to properly use a knife, etc.

In the United States, there are more firearms then people. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time in the near future.

Statistically speaking, in a group that focuses on outdoor activities and self-reliance, there will be multiple gun owners. Some will probably have concealed weapons permits.

Taking a gun into the wilderness is a sensible precaution. There are any number of dangerous critters, especially the ones with rabies.

While in the backcountry, you will also run into other people that are armed.

Our hypothetical non-gun-person is therefore going to be around guns.

Guns are dangerous.

Not knowing how to safely handle a gun makes non-gun people potentially dangerous to both themselves, and other people.

The responsible thing is therefore to learn how to safely handle a weapon, including how to unload and clear it.

They don't need to ever buy one, own one, or even like guns.

But knowing gun safety is right up there with knowing CPR.

You don't learn CPR by reading a book. You do it by practicing in a controlled environment.

Same for gun safety.

I was in body pump class, and the instructor said 'show us those guns'. after class, one of the attendees told the instructor they were pro gun control and were offended by his comments, and asked that he didn't say it anymore.

There's always "that guy".

This sounds so ... American ... to me. I've spent over a 100 days camping in the backcountry (and many more day trips) and never once carried a gun. Only once have I seen someone carrying firearms and it was a ranger specifically tasked with destroying a problematic bear.

It just seems so much easier to just avoid wildlife in most places.

It's very rare in the United States, as well. There's a small number of folks who carry rifles for protection against bears, particularly in places like Alaska where you're extremely likely to encounter bears and also possibly angry moose; most just carry bear spray, or just have a bell and talk or sing, so they don't accidentally sneak up on a bear.

I've hiked in probably 30 of the 50 states, and have met a very small number of people openly carrying guns of any sort (maybe some had concealed pistols for defense against people; that's a reasonably common thing, and there's a permit for concealed carry in most states).

Aside from the handful of states that do not regulate concealed carry, every state has a permit process for concealed carry. There are none remaining now that prohibit it outright.

It would probably be hard to convince them. But I'd try by drawing the parallels with encryption and illegal activity. To rephrase your statement

    There is a non-trivial portion of the population
    that feels encryption only exists to hide illegal
    activity. How would you convince them to use a VPN?

Well, it also helps that encryption is a non-violent technology.

I am very much pro-encryption-for-the-masses, but also consider it to be important to be able to argue multiple angles on any issue.

So, playing Devil's Advocate, here is what an anti-encryption person would say in response:

Nobody really needs encryption, and the common availability of military-grade encryption powers terrorism on a global scale.

Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.

If this technology could be countered by intelligence agencies and law enforcement, it would become almost impossible to use the Internet to coordinate terror attacks, or to secretly support terror groups.

Thousands of innocent lives could be saved if we just limited encryption to low-strength variants, which are still strong enough to safeguard emails and documents from nosy coworkers.

And really, what legitimate use is there for strong encryption? If the government wants your salsa recipe, they are just going to throw you in prison until you tell them. Your online payments will still be secure if the government holds a master key. The only reason you would need strong encryption without government oversight is if you have something dangerous to hide.

>Terrorist groups use encryption to organize and coordinate attacks, such as the mass shooting in Paris that claimed 137 lives, with an additional 400 injuries.

This is not true, and you should not allow someone to get away with statements like these. The Paris attackers made extensive use of unencrypted burner phones. Far from supporting it, this actually deals a fatal blow to the idea that terrorists could be stopped, if it weren't for that pesky encryption. They demonstrably can't.

I'm frightened that, as a meme, "paris attacks demonstrate the need to weaken encryption" actually got off the ground. It demonstrates the power of government propaganda is sufficient to completely invert the lessons of an event to suit them.

Of course, one of the strongest reasons for encryption is not having omnipotent government. Absolute power and all that...

Then why is it classed as a munition? Check mate.

Because that's the loophole the government needs to attempt to limit export of it. Why does the FDA want to class inflatable pools used for water births as "medical devices" that need millions of dollars in studies before they can be sold and used, but on the other hand class stainless steel operating tables as not medical devices?

Rifle shooting doesn't seem to be an important component.

As a non-american scout my experience includes all the same things, except the shooting.

In many cases, it's less about knowing how to shoot a rifle (though that is a factor as well) and more about how to safely handle one. Even if you do not care for guns, there are many around, and knowing how to safely handle one and treat it with the care needed helps to prevent deadly accidents.

I'd add to that the ability to recognize when a weapon is not being safely handled, and either confiscate (in certain circumstances) or correct the person with the weapon, or just vacate the area.

A rifle really is the best tool for: hunting large game for food and defending yourself from hostile megafauna.

It usually only takes one target or skeet shooting session to convert someone. Shooting things is really fun, when you do it in a safe way.

They could certainly opt out of any shooting education, it wasn't compulsory when I was a Boy Scout. Though I think the fact that they'd be shooting at paper targets would be a pretty immediate rebuttal of their beliefs.

Well, it doesn't help that most of the gun enthusiasts' arguments for why they need their guns involve killing other people. That and I don't think that anyone needs a semi-automatic "assault-style" weapon to hunt for food. Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with.

"Most of the guns that we see in the news and the gun debates are not guns that I ever saw someone hunting with."

Correct. Hunting rifles are typically much more powerful and lethal than handguns and "assault style" AR-15 and AR-derivative rifles.

They shoot farther and with more velocity, they use larger (sometimes much larger) projectiles and are much more accurate.

On the other hand, rifles are just a fraction (< 5%) of gun deaths in the United States.

When I lived in Arkansas, I took several deer with an AR-15. Now that I'm in Virginia I can't do that, because the cartridge isn't considered powerful enough to be humane. Here, I use a AKM in 7.62x39mm.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assault-style", but assault weapons are inherently automatic weapons, not semi-automatic. I find it very odd that you specified "semi-automatic" which is, by far, the least dangerous of the two. Are you advocating for bolt-action rifles?

The very definition of "assault weapon" is political. I use it to mean both semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles that were designed for combat. This is a common definition, but obviously, not fully accepted.

Nobody "needs" anything. Do you "need" a car that can exceed 80mph on a road?

We want to have certain things, and once you have accumulated the resources to get them, you can purchase them.

You can have guns solely for target shooting. Hunting is a PITA.

There's no reason for guns to necessarily be included in an outdoorsmanship course, of course.

But I'll note that part of the reason the gun debate is so poisonous is advocates that are unwilling to draw a distinction between the use of guns against animals and the use of guns against humans - regarding any distinction between different types of guns or contexts of ownership as heretical.

I was in scouts. Learning about rifles and shooting is completely optional. If you don't want that merit badge, you can just get something else.

There are a staggeringly large number of firearms in the United States. Firearms are incredibly dangerous objects. Just about the only way to make one more dangerous is to have no idea how it works. I would also think that from an intellectual point of view, one would want to have at least a basic understanding of something you oppose so strongly, which is almost never the case when it comes to firearms.

"There is a non-trivial portion of the population that feels rifles only exist to kill other people."

I find it odd that you say people think rifles only exist to kill people. Pistols are used in the vast majority of shootings, and rifles in the vast majority of sport uses.

People with strong anti gun stances aren't very rational about there uses.

Take them bow hunting. They'll wish they had a gun real quick :)

I'd offer it to them if they'd like, but why push them into it?

For what it's worth, there is also a non-trivial portion of the population that feels that confidence with weapons is an integral part of the American individualist spirit.

lol. methinks you pull stats and scenarios outta your butt.

You are asking how do we convince people who refuse to use guns how to learn how to use guns safely...

Maybe you could just let them not use guns?

> it has never ceased to amaze me how few city-folk know any fundamental outdoor skills.

In our local area we have several drownings a year, tourists who don't understand the power of the ocean. That and people falling off cliffs. Our education system (UK) is very out of touch with nature. Very few students get to swim in the ocean, climb a cliff, light a fire or camp out in the woods.

>> "Our education system (UK)"

The UK isn't big but I don't think you can generalise here because my experience is very different. Scout groups seem very popular (so popular it's really difficult to get your kid a place in one), schools offer the optional Duke of Edinburgh award which teaches camping/orienteering and is pretty popular, and in the UK a hell of a lot of people live pretty close to the ocean and know how to use it safely (surfing is very popular in Ireland and south cost of England/Welsh coast). When I was younger my friends and I would go camping a few times a year as did many other groups of friends (the reason was mostly so we could get drunk without getting caught but still we hiked 12 hours to get there, figured out how to cook, get water, build a fire, pitch tents etc.).

On the other hand I've been pretty shocked this Summer that every sunny weekend it seems half a dozen people get killed in the ocean here. I'm only in my mid-20's but maybe the education system has been lacking in recent years to cause this? Or is it maybe that kids don't play outdoors very much anymore so don't have an easy way to learn and practice the skills? In the 90's video games were just hitting/becoming affordable so we could build huts in fields, play football everyday, ride bikes, play on building sites, camp several times a year. Looking at younger family members they don't do any of these things. Maybe it's not education but lack of practice. Schools can teach you how to swim but if you never actually go to the ocean or a pool after learning you're going to be out of practice when you go and try to swim in the ocean in the summer.

Scout groups seem very popular (so popular it's really difficult to get your kid a place in one), schools offer the optional Duke of Edinburgh award which teaches camping/orienteering and is pretty popular

Don't forget the Cadet organizations too e.g. https://armycadets.com

Totally agree here and had the same experience. Scouts was one of the best parts of my childhood and I say that as a kid who otherwise would have preferred to be indoors playing video games.

> Does such a thing exist?

National Outdoor Leadership School perhaps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com