Des Moines Register publishes interactive map / Schools w/o security

[UPCrawfish]

WHT are they thinking...   An interactive map of all schools that responded to an inquiry about security on site....  With school enrollment, addresses, type of security or "none"....  Remember the paper in New York that published the names/addresses of the firearms owners in the county....

 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/bad-move-newspaper-publishes-interactive-map-identifying-all-public-schools-with-no-security-officers/

[GreyGeek]

Considering what "The Journal" did back East, and how the public responded to it, one would have to be brain dead to  publish a list of ALL the  state schools and mark those that do or do not have armed security.

We can look at this in a couple ways:
1) did they do it out of stupidity, not realizing they were pointing out unarmed schools?
2) did they do  it in hopes of getting the unarmed schools to acquire armed security?
3) did they do it in hopes that it would shame the armed schools into  disarming?
4) did they do this in hopes that another mentally deranged person would do another mass shooting, so that they can pile their gun control arguments on top of the bodies of fresh victims?

#1 is too easy an out.  NO ONE in journalism is that stupid, even Liberal  journalists.
#2 is doubtful because most major and big city media is for gun control and confiscation.
#3 highly possible because The Journal outed CCW permit holders in an attempt to shame, scare or make them targets
#4 Can gun control advocates be that fanatical or callous?   

I'm torn between #3 an #4.  On the theory that even the most die hard  anti-2A Liberals would not deliberately set up children as targets, that leaves me with option #3.

[bkoenig]

I really, really, despise the news media.

[SS_N_NE]

Even though they have the RIGHT, there is always responsibility. Should something happen, an 'ambulance chaser' or so, might point out their error.

[CliffD]

We sink to a new low everyday. It seems that we are also gaining speed in our decent.

[Dan W]

I would not discount #1 so easily

[NE Bull]

Now, folks, do not fret. Our fearless Senators all but guaranteed us mere citizens, that since the media here in Nebraska have never done anything like this,  nothing like this will ever happen in our fair state.

[OnTheFly]

I really, really, despise the news media.

I will see your despise of the news media and raise you a "really".

Fly

[unfy]

*grumble*

[abbafandr]

I would not discount #1 so easily

Most definitely don't discount #1.  I, for one,  never cease to be amazed at decisions people make without considering the consequences.  Familiar with the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'?   They can't repeal that law either

[UPCrawfish]

Comments section of article.  20 comments so far - 19 negative, 1 'what's the problem'.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/comments/article/20130327/NEWS/130327020/54-Iowa-school-districts-resource-officers

[CitizenClark]

Considering what "The Journal" did back East, and how the public responded to it, one would have to be brain dead to  publish a list of ALL the  state schools and mark those that do or do not have armed security.

We can look at this in a couple ways:
1) did they do it out of stupidity, not realizing they were pointing out unarmed schools?
2) did they do  it in hopes of getting the unarmed schools to acquire armed security?
3) did they do it in hopes that it would shame the armed schools into  disarming?
4) did they do this in hopes that another mentally deranged person would do another mass shooting, so that they can pile their gun control arguments on top of the bodies of fresh victims?

#1 is too easy an out.  NO ONE in journalism is that stupid, even Liberal  journalists.
#2 is doubtful because most major and big city media is for gun control and confiscation.
#3 highly possible because The Journal outed CCW permit holders in an attempt to shame, scare or make them targets
#4 Can gun control advocates be that fanatical or callous?   

I'm torn between #3 an #4.  On the theory that even the most die hard  anti-2A Liberals would not deliberately set up children as targets, that leaves with with option #3.

Maybe they are just principled advocates for freedom who are trying to make parents too scared to send their kids off to government indoctrination day camps any more. (I doubt it.)

[bkoenig]

I think 1, 3, and 4 are all highly probable.  The news media is largely composed of vile scum who can't make an honest living any other way, IMO.

[Phantom]

WOW

Talk about everbody jumping in the Deep end with out thinking .....


Stop and think a min fokes ......

Your Linking this action to what "The Journal" did back East ??   That was an individual Privacy issue.....

This is more of a Public School Issue.......
In what schools public officials haven't still funded any security to protect the Kids.
This more of a Shame on you for not doing something than lets post Private info on People who own guns.

Why are we so quick to condemn this ?
Should we want to know that these schools are not yet protected ?

Hell they have Signs posted all over around all of them Saying....... "LOOK NO GUNS ALLOWED HERE!"..
Now while i'll agree it's in very poor taste to put on up .......it's not really private info

It is however an extreme violation of OPSEC.

 
What we should upset about and be asking here is
Why are school officals or anyone giving out any info on the security measures in place to anyone ?

[GreyGeek]

Hell they have Signs posted all over around all of them Saying....... "LOOK NO GUNS ALLOWED HERE!"..

EVERY School in America is required by the 1986 "School Safety Act" to be gun free for a distance of 1,000' from the edge of the nearest school property (so much for having guns in your house if it is within that distance).   So, the question really isn't which schools don't have protection because before Sandy Hook essentially NONE of them had armed guards.  They were, and most still are, setting ducks for psychos.

What that article did was make it clear to psychos, who are usually very intelligent, as to exactly which schools they can avoid if they decide to emulate Adam Lanza.  THAT is what makes the published report so vile, and puts at greater risk the children attending the schools whose administrators think that "Gun Free Zone" signs make them bullet proof.

[CitizenClark]

EVERY School in America is required by the 1986 "School Safety Act" to be gun free for a distance of 1,000' from the edge of the nearest school property (so much for having guns in your house if it is within that distance).   

I believe you are actually referring to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, and if so, this is not an issue:

18 USC 922(q)(1) Federal Gun-Free School Zones

(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm--

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

...

[GreyGeek]

Actually, this is not an issue:

I stand corrected about firearms in homes within the 1,000 ft.  Thanks, CitizenClark
(Also a good example of why, when you act as your own lawyer, you have fool for a client.)

[CitizenClark]

I stand corrected about firearms in homes within the 1,000 ft.  Thanks, CitizenClark
(Also a good example of why, when you act as your own lawyer, you have fool for a client.)

Well, with all the ridiculous, unconstitutional laws out there, it is mighty hard to keep up.

[bkoenig]

The thing is, the media has proven time and time again that they have ulterior motives.  They don't care who gets hurt as long as it furthers their agenda.

I am extremely doubtful that they did this to shame those schools into providing security.  After all, the leftist media has repeatedly vilified the NRA's proposal that all schools have armed security.  They don't want armed protection in our schools, so that pretty much rules out #2. 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

[sparky0068]

Does the term"Citizen Sheppard" make sense now?