Andy Freeman vs Random House Dictionary

Andy Freeman said:

The Random House Dictionary is wrong on this one. They often lack the
technical knowledge to “define” terms and go with something that
sounds good, but is wrong or basically meaningless.

If Andy had claimed that the
Earth was flat and standard references on the subject and most other
people were wrong, it is conceivable, if unlikely, that he could be
correct. However, when he tells us that the dictionary and everyone
else is wrong about the meaning of the term “Saturday Night Special”
he cannot possibly be correct. Usage defines meaning.

That’s an interesting leap by Lambert. A dictionary has a definition
so he assumes that “everyone” uses it that way. The dictionary’s
definition is wrong BECAUSE usage does define meaning and the usage is
“guns owned by niggers”.

Everyone I have seen has used the Random House definition. It would
be simple to prove that not everyone uses the Random House definition
— provide one single example where somebody has used it to mean “guns
owned by niggers”.

Can you provide a current citation using the former meaning?

Sure. It’s in the distinction between “good handguns” and “bad
handguns”, aka SNS, by people who make the distinction. Good handguns
are used by nice people.

This is not a citation. Let’s see a properly referenced quote from
someone using SNS to mean “guns owned by niggers”. Here is an example
of a citation where SNS is used: (This is the posting that started
this thread – note that Rich uses the Random House definition.) Rich Greenberg:

Even better. Have a cheap pistol (saturday nite special) handy. After you
off the thief, wrap his hand around the gun and fire a shot or 2.

Andy Freeman said:

Why would a rational control policy encourage crooks to substitute
high quality guns for low-quality ones?

Oh, I see, he doesn’t. Andy, this is irrelevant.

It’s quite relevant. SNS is tied to an argument. That argument is
that getting rid of “them” will do some good.

It would be relevant if the Random House definition was “evil handguns
that we should ban”. But it isn’t. It’s “a cheap, small caliber
handgun that is easily obtainable”. There is nothing here about
getting rid of them, and yet you claim that this definition is
“doesn’t make sense” because “getting rid of them doesn’t make sense”.
What doesn’t make sense is your argument.

Is it that small calibre handguns cannot be cheap? Or that they are not
readily available anywhere? Or what?

That the characteristics offered don’t distinguish the guns. Large
caliber guns can be cheap and available.

You can’t tell the difference between a cheap small calibre gun and a
cheap large calibre gun? I’m no firearms expert, but I think I could
figure that one out.

Guns for “niggers” are no more available than guns for anyone else.

Again, irrelevant. The Random House definition says nothing about
“niggers”.