Skip to main content

Rachel Maddow was asked about what he learned at a national summit to help prevent mass shootings and help deal with them once they occur.

Chief Edwards was one of the responders to the shooting that occurred in Oak Creek Wisconsin 4 months ago.

His response really chilled me.  He said that his summit taught him that the different disciplines like law enforcement, mental health organizations and education institutions need to share data on individuals in order to recognize people posing potential risks.  That in itself isn't what disturbed me.

What was disturbing is that he suggested that the an individual's right to privacy may need to be forfeited.

He even suggested that some laws regarding privacy may need to be changed.

He didn't suggest that gun rights need to be changed.

So tell me, what's more important, the right to have a gun or the right to your privacy.  

I know it's not that simplistic, but I felt a chill when a chief of police suggested a change in privacy laws rather than a change in gun control law.


If you had to choose, which would it be?

51%14 votes
48%13 votes

| 27 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Right to privacy went out the door years ago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    9/11 blew a hole in it.

    You give up info daily online and in fact have little privacy left anyhow.

    Both gun "rights" and "privacy" as it presently exists need to be understood as limited by the necessity to prevent mass murder by terrorists, the mentally ill who actually are a danger to themselves or other (certainly not all the mentally ill) and police forces increasingly militarised by a society increasingly fearful because of the lack of proper limitations on weapons.

    The snake is devouring itself.

    I must be dreaming...

    by murphy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:47:44 PM PST

  •  Doctor/Patient confidentiality will be gone. (0+ / 0-)

    It is pretty much gone with the Veteran's Administration now.

    But, if further gun restrictions are envisioned, they will be part of mandatory disclosures by doctors of patients on anti-depressants, ritalin, bi-polar meds, anti-psychotics and much much more.

    So, be prepared.  You won't get one without the other this time.

  •  You have a right to privacy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just Bob, koNko, FloridaSNMOM, CroneWit

    of your medical records, but it can certainly be seen as reasonable to require that you waive those rights as pertains to psychiatric treatment if you want a license to own or carry a weapon.

    Waivers are required in many other situations, most of which do not involve potential danger to others.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:59:00 PM PST

  •  20 First Graders Were Killed..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If I ever needed psychiatric meds & was considered a danger to others, my doctor could inform those I might harm.

    Here's a tribute to the children:

  •  I don't think it's a binary choice. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But rather, that he's suggesting people deemed to be a risk are reported so they can be investigated and/or watched.

    What often happens, after the fact, is that we agree "it was going to happen one day" and are proven correct.

    So let's not equate investigating reasonable suspicions, particularly those raised by people with the training to recognize potentially dangerous behavioral patterns, or with evidence of potential harm, with the wholesale forfeiting of rights and subjugation of the populous to a police state.

    The gray area that we would probably find troubling and needs rules, is the breaching of what is normally considered "privileged" relationships.

    But I would ask you, for example, if a psychologist or case worker has reason to believe a client is endangering others (or themselves for that matter), don't they have an obligation to do something?

    And BTW, I honestly don't think privacy is all it's cracked up to be, both in terms of it's value and the degree to which it seems to exist in our modern world. I'm reasonably confident the government has a pile of information about you they are doing nothing with, and would do nothing with, unless they were prompted to for some reason.

    How and when they would use that information is the question.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:59:30 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site