College students who own guns are responsible

[Grapeshot]

"College students who own firearms are more likely than their unarmed counterparts to binge drink, to drive after binge drinking, to be arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, and to damage property after drinking alcohol. - Daniel Webster and Jon Vernick, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 2013.[2]" They wouldn't lie [sarcasm]

Fact, not fiction: "......college age students from 18 to 22 are at least as law-abiding as permit holders from ages 25 to 44. There is little reason to worry about young adults carry concealed handguns."

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/08/concealed-carry-revocation-rates-by-age/

 

[Brace]

A slightly increased propensity for alcohol abuse is also less than a pressing emergency if these students don't have their firearms on their person when they engage in this behavior. If their gun is locked up in their car or at home then the risk involved is the same as from any other drunk student. So there's a fundamental equivocation there, as is usually the case with these things.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Its a right. Say no more. You cannot reason with people on this subject matter with people who are antis.

 

[OC for ME]

"College students who own firearms are more likely than their unarmed counterparts to binge drink, ...

College kids are more likely than their non-college kid counterparts to binge drink...cuz non-college kids likely have a job.

Many college kid binge drinkers are likely not of legal age to legally binge drink.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

"College students who own firearms are more likely than their unarmed counterparts to binge drink, ...

College kids are more likely than their non-college kid counterparts to binge drink...cuz non-college kids likely have a job.

Many college kid binge drinkers are likely not of legal age to legally binge drink.

Your partial quote of my reply is misleading. Those words were not mine, but quoted from another source.

What is the legal age to "binge drink"?

 

[OC for ME]

Your partial quote of my reply is misleading. Those words were not mine, but quoted from another source.

What is the legal age to "binge drink"?

OK

What does '...' mean to you, so that I may correctly indicate that I am attempting to shorten a post?

 

[Grapeshot]

OK

What does '...' mean to you, so that I may correctly indicate that I am attempting to shorten a post?

Shortening and misattributing are 2 different things.

I'm really not worried about it

 

[OC for ME]

LOL Grammatic literacy was forked in about 1953 by the tolerance of Herb Caen's Three Dot Journalism that confused the ellipsis, indicating redaction, with some sort of double-dash or em-dash acting as a connective conjunction.

Until we return, conservatively and reactionary, the descent of our language to barbarian grunts will continue.

...ugh!

 

[Brace]

Language is use! Language cannot be constrained by your rules!

 

[The Truth]

...ugh!

...lol'd

 

[Grapeshot]

Language is use! Language cannot be constrained by your rules!

Words have meanings and they affect the effect.

Language/use of words is constrained here. So too is it restrained.

 

[Brace]

Words have meanings and they affect the effect.

Language/use of words is constrained here. So too is it restrained.

Yes, but this is organic. You don't manufacture the rules and meaning of natural language by committee.

Lugh Olub Lugh, wugga bugga ewe, puppy-mommy!

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

So we have on the one hand late Wittgenstein, a brilliant albeit arrogant logician whose arrogance had cooled with age, and on the other Lewis Carroll, an incompetent mathematician who wrote a work of didactic fiction so ham fistedly that it's now generally mistaken for an allegory about drugs.

 

[Brace]

In SQL,

<>

is the symbol for not equal, a colloquial sort of mutation of the greater than and lesser than comparison operators which means "either greater than or lesser than", which is analytically equivalent to "not equal to". In perl, it's the standard input operator. The symbol

*

means different things depending on whether it's part of a glob or a regular expression, or acting as a binary operator, either on two numeric quantities or on two non-numeric quantities which have been coerced to their UTF-8 numerical representations. Writing perl embedded SQL is pretty normal so it's possible to see radically different uses of many symbols in a single script, which are only clear contextually. None of this is illogical or unstructured.

Something like the gradual deprecation of the word "may" from the english language in favor of a dual meaning of "can" similarly doesn't diminish the fidelity of the language but simply introduces new context sensitive rules of use to replace the loss of the deprecated word. The same is true for the dual use of the elipses (although personally I prefer to enclose it in square brackets when using it in the way OC for ME did). I really have no idea why people get so upset by things like this. Now, if you're talking about the actual misuse of a word or phrase, like when people say "begs the question" to mean "raises the question", that makes sense; there's an actual meaning which is being lost in the misapplication of the phrase, and an important one which corresponds to a logical concept. If a change to the language or an evolved double-meaning to a word doesn't have this sort of effect though, then it isn't degenerative and there's no reason to get upset with it.

 

[skidmark]

spam reported

stay safe.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Who cares?

"Responsible gun owners"... blah ! Humbug !

Its a trap !


Perhaps I am an irresponsible gun owner ... but never violated a law or injured anyone. Now what?

And what is "irresponsible"? Who makes that call?

Is not cleaning your gun irresponsible? To some, yes.

Not zeroing your sights irresponsible? To some, yes.

I won't even play this game with the antis ...