Students Support Gun Safety Instructor (6 year old stepdaughter shot by 2 yr old brother)

Jarred Dubois has worked with the Sea Cadets youth program in the Central Valley for the past seven years. He teaches firearm safety.

Some of his students are coming to his defense. They say Jarred is like a big brother to them.

“I couldn't believe it because I know how he his about guns and how safe he is,” U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Jordan Davis told us.

-----

Police found a total of 53 weapons in Jarred Dubois’ home. His attorney says three or four of the guns were Jarred’s. The rest were his father’s and rifles used for Sea Cadet training. Those rifles were locked in a gun safe in the garage.

http://www.cbs47.tv/news/local/story/Students-Support-Gun-Safety-Instructor/-xcu61f1wEGVkh_agHPGbA.cspx

applies double to handguns.

if "accident" is really the right word for this case.

...handguns.

Simply because of which is more likely to be loaded in each situation.

having discussions with the children about gun safety.

I don't think a kid that age would comprehend. But certainly give information on trigger locks, bio-metric safes, or pamphlet on pistols with magazine safeties. Put it in the same information about pools etc. From what I have seen, the problem is not so much hicks and hayseeds like me and where I grew up, but people new to gun ownership in the suburbs.

...is EXACTLY what you need to do to make them not want to touch something, right?

Anyway, your initial point is wrong as there is nobody here that thinks pediatricians shouldn't be able to talk about firearm safety with patients or provide them information on it, only that pediatricians shouldn't be asking patients direct questions about their private lives as a requisite for future treatment. But of course, you knew that, you just enjoy mis-characterizing the arguments of others so much that you ignore it.

of pediatricians - that much is clear

How exactly is a bill that prevents doctors from prying into non-medical private matters of ones life stifling the doctors first amendment rights? Is there some clause that prevents them from distributing information to everybody about firearms safety, or that prevents them from speaking about firearms outside of their professional obligations?

The fact that you are unable to defend your position other than to say that it "clearly stifles their free speech" says a great deal about both you and your position.

You really think that a law stating doctors cannot demand private, non-medical related information from patients is somehow stifling their free speech? Sorry, but that's a load of bull.

Their ability to ask questions not relating to their medical practice does not trump the privacy rights of their patients. End of story.

with children or, preferably, with their parents. If you're referring to the FL law, it only prevents physicians from asking about and/or recording gun ownership - the flow of information from doctor to patient is unimpeded...

It doesn't matter if you have 1 gun or 100 guns, it doesn't change the requirement to properly secure them in the presence of children.

Clearly you did not. I'll repeat myself then. No matter 1 gun or 100 it doesn't change the fact that they need to be safety stored and secured when small children are present in the house. So there is no "dynamic" that is changed with multiple firearms, only the time and cost involved in ensuring they are all properly secured. Given that this guy was a firearm instructor, he likely knew this well.

But I have a feeling he suffered from the mindset that many who are proficient at certain things suffer from; the idea that only those who aren't as "knowledgeable" as you need to worry that much about safety. YOU are just too smart to let anything bad happen, even if you don't follow all the safety guidelines. It happens all the time in all human endeavors.

...the house were properly secured.

It was that ONE GUN that way too fucking many gun nuts in the country deliberately leave unsecured in defiance of the law "For reasons of personal safety."

He has no defence. AND I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK for his grief, or any lesson learnt. I care not that he won't ever do it again. I care not if he's repudiated guns entirely. He needs to be punished as if he pulled that trigger himself, not to "sort" him out to the satisfaction of society, but to get the message accross to other gun owners that you don't gamble with the lives of others, particularly children. No way, no how, not for any fucking reason.

...being killed wasn't enough deterrence, do you really think the risk of a prison sentence would have made any difference at all? To him or to anybody else that leaves a firearm unsecured with children in the house? Isn't this a bit like saying the death penalty is an effective deterrent?

start the safety discussion. Consider the following scenarios:


#1
Doctor: "Do you own any guns?"
Patient: "Why, yes!"
D: "Did you know that children are adept at finding unsecured or poorly secured firearms? Would you like to discuss or take home some firearms safety information?"
P: "Yes, please!"

#2
D: "The home can be a dangerous place for toddlers. For example, children are adept at finding unsecured or poorly secured firearms. Would you like to discuss or take home some firearms safety information?"
P: "Yes, please!"


What is the effective difference between the two? I can't see any. And of course, patients are free to volunteer any info they want...

And only the method involving a privacy violation has a possible negative outcome in the shape of the doctors own bigotry requiring the patient to find a new doctor. Both can have the same positive outcome in making sure the patient has appropriate safety info.

So all you really have admitted DrDan is that this issue was never really about child safety for you, because what is REALLY important to you is forcing gun owners to "expose" themselves in some fashion by forcing them to answer non-medical related questions about their personal life.

a doctor to drop a patient over a social/political issue, and the other scenario makes that more difficult. The only ones claiming a patient-safety impact are those opposing the law, those who support the misbehavior that brought it about in the first place.

So, my question was actually directed to you, not to the NRA: how does preventing a physician from asking about and/or recording gun ownership impair the delivery of safety information? What is the effective difference between the two scenarios I presented?

I am looking at it from a free-speech perspective. Why is a pediatrician's approach to child-safety controlled by banning questions the pediatrician considers important? Why can the GOP/NRA dictate medical practices?

Once we have that out of the way, I'll be happy to discuss the free speech angle...

let the doctor practice

You have not yet, and no one has, demonstrated that the flow of safety and medical information from doctor to patient is in any way impaired by the new law.

:hi:

the best way to run their practice. The GOP/NRA (and loyal followers) wish to dictate that according to their biased philosophy.

Where were you when they were working on HIPAA? Did you fight against it or are you just worried about the right of quacks to push anti gun propaganda on patients?

...on guns or anything else for that matter?

Or perhaps you are saying, if she'd been properly taught by her doctor, the six year old would have spotted the danger and "ducked and covered"? Hmm, the bloke in the fucking business of such teaching, and in daily contact with the child failed this? So I doubt a 15 min consult would have done the job.

The sort of rulings I see on these sorts of cases remind me of the rulings from not that long ago against drunks getting behind the wheel and killing or maiming others. And even today the punishment still rarely if ever fits the crime, when the crime is related to guns, cars or shooting your fuckung mouth off.

You'll lock up a "druggie" for the term of his natural life on the basis of three pot busts in his home, but a drunkard with a twenty year long record of intoxicated misbehaviour behind the wheel who ploughs into a crowd deserves a twenty-second chance. As does a gun safety instructor, who deliberately ignores the rules.

...handgun recognition flashcards?

"Not yours. Don't touch." Is a lesson which can only be taught by a parent or long term carer.

I'm guessing you missed the bit about a "FIFTEEN MINUTE" consult in your haste to score off me.

that conversation works just fine - I can testify to that.

...15 minutes or less?

How?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wanna bet it was there just in case of home invasion?

RULEZ are RULEZ are RULEZ. Except of course when it suits fuckwits like this to break them for personal reasons.

It's one thing to talk/teach a good game -- it's another to live up to it.

to take a tragedy and use it to take a cheap shot at all gun owners.

we have a lotta gun owners with a lotta bluster about how "law abiding" and "responsible" they are, but we see evidence everyday that a significant percentage of these folks are liars, plain and simple.

You could post 100 threads a day, with 100 different idiots- that still would not be a significant percentage of the 80M gun owners.

Fucking duh.

just look at Congress and the current Weiner fiasco.

That in no way means that all members or even a significant percentage of members of Congress are liars.

However, I suspect that a higher percentage of gun owners are more honest than members of Congress.