To the bolded-sorry I was so not meaning to mean you personally were looking at it in rose-colored glasses just that we in general tend to think things are so much worse than they used to be in certain respects like people being killed by another person.
But here's the thing... the notion that "these sorts of shootings" have experienced a "huge uptick" is more rooted in perception than reality. From NPR:
Here's a link to the Northeastern University analysis. It's a very interesting read. Even the type of shootings like the one that took place in Maryland (not a "mass shooting" since there was only three people injured) are not on the increase. Even when looking at cases when there is only one victim there has not been an increase since the 1990's... in fact there has been a decrease. But instead we're flooded with media promoted stories like the 6th grade kid that decided to "write a will" because he thinks there's a reasonable chance that he will be gunned down in school before he graduates, as well as interviews with students that think that shootings like Parkland "happen all the time."
I honestly can’t see how anyone would support a rule that states kids whose family simply own a gun will face punishment from the school system for simply owning it. What’s worse is the ex board member that tried defending it.
I think I paraphrased it pretty well, what part do you think I got wrong?
Legally speaking "possession" is not necessarily synonymous with "ownership."
Of course it is totally wrong for the school to suspend students for participating in legal activities, with their parents or their parent's permission, during off school hours.
My guess that this rule was in place to cover kids who bring weapons to school as well as kids who brandish or use weapons off school grounds in a threatening manner. It doesn't make sense to apply that rule to kids who are at a shooting range with their parents. I bet if we dug a little more in the student handbook or school regulations we would find "zero tolerance" somewhere. The rule was there and the administrators felt they were obligated to suspend the kids because of some zero tolerance nonsense. I'm glad they changed their minds ... it was the right thing to do.
Maybe not, but it’s not a law, it’s a school policy, and possession and ownership are defined by using each other:
There's some truth to that, but let me frame it another way. Travelling is a "known risk" activity. Each day there are over 100 people in the US that die in car accidents alone. Very few of those deaths get any sort of media attention outside of a mention locally. It's the distributed nature of these events that allow them to fly under the radar of our national psyche in questioning the safety of, or fearing, those activities. But when something like a bus plunges down a ravine, a commercial plane crashes, or there's cases of other transportation mass casualties, we suddenly start to question if those activities are "safe" for us personally. Even more so if there are a couple of similar such events in close proximity, time wise, regardless of recent prior "accident free" records within those industries.
That is so sad
. I am heartbroken for her family and friends.
I think the school is in the wrong, but your dictionary definitions back up what I said. Possession can mean either "having", or "owning" or "controlling". You can have something or control something without "owning" it per your definition. If I walk into a school with my friend's knife in my pocket, I still may be found in violation of possessing a weapon on school grounds... even if it's my friend's knife. However, at that same time, my friend may own the knife but he won't be in possession of it.
