shooting guns at campouts
 

is there any sort of gun that you would be upset to find that your son shot at a supervised campout (supervised of course)?

In other words, you might be fine with your son shooting a .22, but be upset to find out that a scout leader brought an AK-47.

Only full-auto guns - they are illegal without a special license (I think it's a federal class C license).

All semi-auto rifles are functionally the same. In other words, the semi-auto AK-47 is functionally the same as the .22 semi-auto rifle. It may look scarier but it is functionally the same.

I know what semi-autos are. I'm talking about parents' perceptions.

Yes, I would be upset kids were shooting AK-47's at a campout. Our troop's two for two when it comes to ER visits for knife injuries the last two supervised scout camps. Hate to see what they'd do with AK's.

would you feel the same if they were shooting .22s?

Hmm, maybe I should get parental permission slips when we shoot guns.

Tough call, Mike. Technically, you are supposed to have NRA-certified leaders for all BSA shooting activities. On the other hand, if you showed up with AK-47's your boys would love you.

Probably. I don't think I'd assume scouts would be shooting guns on a campout unless it was a scout camp deal where it was at a shooting range for a merit badge. I'd definitely want to know beforehand.

our troop has a long history of shooting at campouts, and we've never had a NRA certified instructor/leader.

When I've had them shoot with my gun(s), I am standing over them like a hawk, and only one gun is being shot at a time. I bring eye and hearing protection.

Same here. But that is the BSA rule.

We went to the local shooting range recently with the priests and played the Annie Oakley game at the trap range. They all said it was their favorite activity of the year.

you shot at clays with rifles? I hope you were shooting into the side of a mountain.

Shotguns are for wimps.

rifles should always be fired, knowing exactly where the bullet is going to go if it misses its target.

Of course you know that, and I'm sure you did your Annie Oakley responsibily. Probably a range right next to a mountain.

I told you my perceptions and gave the reasons why my perceptions are the way they are. I would only be concerned if it was a full auto gun. Any semi-auto gun would not concern me regardless of how scary looking the gun was.

The point is that people that don't know anything about guns would probably have different perceptions than mine.

I was joking. We used shotguns. You play Annie Oakley by lining everyone up side by side on the trap range. One person is designated as the shooter. He says "pull" and the clay pigeon is released. If he hits the target, then the turn is over and the next person to the right takes a turn. If he misses, then the next person to the right shoots. If that person hits the target, then the shooter is out. If he misses then the next person can shoot. If that person hits, then both of the other shooters are out. The second or third shooters can also get the other(s) out by shooting a large fragment of lightly hit target. You keep going until there is one person left. It is a blast.

The skeet and trap ranges are up Provo Canyon and you shoot off the ledge into the center of the canyon. Directly to the highway below. But the highway is about a 1/2 mile away so it doesn't matter. Of course, rifles and pistols are fired in a gravel pit off to the side.

I have one boy in Scouts. I would prefer to know beforehand if any guns are going to be fired, but, if I didn't find out about it until after, I wouldn't freak out, unless it was with leaders I don't trust (not the case now, our leaders are generally excellent).

Anything "worse" than a .22 or shotgun, I wouldn't be thrilled about (probably including a .22 pistol or similar handgun, easier to have accidents with them, in my uninformed opionion).

If there was an automatic weapon, my boy wouldn't go.

A tank, on the other hand, would be pretty cool.

Why is that?

We've shot guns with the boys for years and only this year did we finally get one of the leaders NRA certified. If there isn't one present, I believe technically it cannot be filed under a BSA tour permit and won't be covered under the troop insurance policy.

We usually just called them scout activities until the guns came out, then they magically turned into a church youth activity.

There are similar "fuzzy" requirements for rock climbing and repelling. IIRC, the church allows kids to repel, but not climb. Scouts require a leader to have gone through the Climb On Safely course. I think I'm the only adult in the history of our ward to have gone through this class, but there are probably a half dozen guys in our ward who are more qualified to run a safe climbing activity than I am. The class basically told us that if there is a chance of a rockslide or lightening storm, you might want to cancel the activity.

according to BSA, boy scouts can't shoot anything but a single-shot .22.

http://www.scouting.org/pubs/gss/gss08.html

That's bullcrap. So I guess we will be transitioning to youth activity when we shoot.

I think the .22 is best for the young guys.

I have a rule. If you aren't strong enough to hold the gun steady, you aren't allowed to shoot it.

We had a deacon that shot Farah's Kahr 9mm. The slide wouldn't return because he kept limp wristing it. He was going to shoot a 12ga but I took it away when he couldn't point it without waving up and down.

They sure make weak kids these days.

Probably a good idea to stick to rifles. Harder to accidentally point a rifle in the wrong direction.

It costs at least $250 to become NRA certified.

http://www.nrahq.org/education/train...ate=TX&Type=IT

That is bullcrap. Get them a Desert Eagle. See if they can hold that up.

Mostly because I am a sissified city boy who is afraid of guns. Didn't grow up with them, never been hunting, etc.

Plus I remember what I was like at that age.

Rational or not, I just wouldn't feel comfortable with a bunch of 12-16 year old boys and an automatic weapon.

Every gun, regardless of caliber and action must be treated with utmost respect. I don't think an automatic is inherently more dangerous than a semi-auto. Or pump or whatever. It's not like the leaders just give each kid an Uzi and say "Have at it."

I do think that an automatic IS more dangerous. It's harder to control.

Have you ever shot one?

Yes.

For someone slight of stature, with no experience shooting guns, shooting fully automatic would be more difficult, and certainly more dangerous.

I think you are assuming someone that lots of experience with guns, and I make no such assumption.

No, I am assuming close, careful, and knowledgeable adult supervision. I shot an M-16 when I was a kid and loved it. The recoil was quite tame.

But this is pretty much a moot point anyway, given the scarcity of fully-automatic guns.

I think your argument doesn't make sense. It's as if you are arguing there is no difference between any guns, short of a .50 caliber in terms of safety for new users.

For example, a 1-lb trigger pull would be more dangerous for a new user than a 8-lb trigger pull.

Some people just aren't careful, even when they have been carefully instructed. Some people are stupid.

They turn their body, and turn the gun at the same time, and you have a situation where a gun is pointing at a person. This happens instantly.

Last time we shot, I had to tell each kid about 5 times "GET YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER!"

It's for reasons like this that a rifle would be safer than a pistol with someone who is new to guns (and is stupid).

Yes, but that argument can be used both ways. People shouldn't assume that a lower caliber gun is substantially safer than a higher caliber gun for example. Both are lethal.

On the rare occasions that we use pistols, the boys only handle the pistol right as they are about to shoot. An adult hands it to the boy, stands by his side, and immediately takes it after the shot.

the reason being, of course, is that it is more dangerous.

Yes, and all are more dangerous than water balloons.

I don't see a reason for novices, and I would assume most scouts should be regarded as novices, to use anything other than a 22 caliber, bolt action, and perhaps a 410 pump or over under shotgun.

I agree with Lebowski that all weapons need to be treated respectivefully. And I am concerned with how screwy scouts are. Yet, shooting can be taught as I was taught in a cautious manner. In my mind, one starts with the low caliber, and only after some degree of mastery is achieved does one move up the ladder of fire power. Plus it's cheaper to use lower caliber weapons, which was the main reason I usually practiced with 22s.

Problem is that I don't own a 22 or a 410. Much less a single-shot bolt-action 22 (which is the only kind officially permitted).