 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / April 2007Is a Korean Asian?
I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the word to refer only to south Asians. Can anyone estimate the percentage of English, Scottish, Irish, etc. who would assume Asian didn't include all of Asia? Or the number that wouldn't realize people in other parts of the world might include all of Asia. Were people really dismayed? If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) > I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard > that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the > word to refer only to south Asians. Mostly we know that when Americans say "Asian" they mean Chinese- looking people in the USA, and that when we say it we mean Indian- looking people in the UK. We also know that Asia includes India, China, Japan, Mongolia, Nepal, Vietnam, etc. We call Koreans "Koreans". > Can anyone estimate the percentage of English, Scottish, Irish, etc. > who would assume Asian didn't include all of Asia? 16.345% > Or the number > that wouldn't realize people in other parts of the world might include > all of Asia. 152,456 > Were people really dismayed? I doubt it. >> I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard >> that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >We call Koreans "Koreans". The only reason that I can think of why some Brits might have been dismayed at hearing that the shooter was Asian (British meaning) would be that that would raise the possibility that he was Muslim.  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) <snip> > >We call Koreans "Koreans". > > The only reason that I can think of why some Brits might have been > dismayed at hearing that the shooter was Asian (British meaning) > would be that that would raise the possibility that he was Muslim. Good thing he wasn't North Korean. SignatureOdysseus >>Can anyone estimate the percentage of English, Scottish, Irish, etc. >>who would assume Asian didn't include all of Asia? > > 16.345% That's all? I'd have guessed 17.692% but I've been wrong before. JOE >> I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard >> that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We call Koreans "Koreans". sh.t. If you don't know the nationality, you probably call them Asians. Remember, we hear about some people before we see them. The shooter in the VaTech slaughter had shot himself in the head (perhaps in the face), making any closer definition than Asian impossible. Or do you insist that East Asian, or Yellow Sea Asian or China Sea Asian must be specified, regardless of the difficulty of identifying the suicide? The police did not know his nationality or identity until they traced the receipt that they found in his book bag. And even then the identification was worrisome. >>> I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard >>> that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the >>> word to refer only to south Asians. >> >> Mostly we know that when Americans say "Asian" they mean Chinese- >> looking people in the USA, Robert seems to agree with you, but I think you don't "know" what most Americans think, and that both of you have guessed wrong. >> and that when we say it we mean Indian- >> looking people in the UK. We also know that Asia includes India, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >that East Asian, or Yellow Sea Asian or China Sea Asian must be >specified, regardless of the difficulty of identifying the suicide? Exactly. >The police did not know his nationality or identity until they traced >the receipt that they found in his book bag. And even then the >identification was worrisome. I suppose some will point out that they are not typical Americans, but there is an Asian Indian radio station in DC, and when their newscast was talking about Israel, it referred to the area as West Asia (or west Asia. It was radio, so I coudln't tell) So it seems the Indians here consider Asia to extend well beyond the "Asian subcontinent". If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) > I suppose some will point out that they are not typical Americans, but > there is an Asian Indian radio station in DC, and when their newscast > was talking about Israel, it referred to the area as West Asia (or > west Asia. It was radio, so I coudln't tell) So it seems the Indians > here consider Asia to extend well beyond the "Asian subcontinent". It's not the "Asian" subcontinent, it's the "Indian" subcontinent. The far side of the Bosphorus (viewed from London) has always been known as the "Asian shore", hasn't it? Long way west of Israel. Check out some geography books, if they aren't banned in your state. Check out some history books also, (they almost certainly ARE banned) check out what the Romans called that part of the world. >> I suppose some will point out that they are not typical Americans, but >> there is an Asian Indian radio station in DC, and when their newscast [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not the "Asian" subcontinent, it's the "Indian" subcontinent. You're right. My mistake. >The far side of the Bosphorus (viewed from London) has always been >known as the "Asian shore", hasn't it? I've never heard the phrase before. I"m in the US. > Long way west of Israel. Check >out some geography books, if they aren't banned in your state. What's wrong with you. >Check >out some history books also, (they almost certainly ARE banned) check >out what the Romans called that part of the world. What the Romans called it is not relevant to my post. If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) > I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard > that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the > word to refer only to south Asians. I can't answer for them, but in the US "Asian" is ordinarily taken to mean what "oriental" meant before it became non-PC. Basically, anyone with an epicanthic fold is "Asian" in that sense. If this dismays the Brits, they should consider how dismayed Americans are by terms like "red Indian."[1] > Can anyone estimate the percentage of English, Scottish, Irish, etc. > who would assume Asian didn't include all of Asia? [ ... ] > Were people really dismayed? Don't ask me. Ask them. [1] Not much, actually. SignatureBob Lieblich Equanimical > I can't answer for them, but in the US "Asian" is ordinarily taken to > mean what "oriental" meant before it became non-PC. Basically, > anyone with an epicanthic fold is "Asian" in that sense. If this > dismays the Brits, they should consider how dismayed Americans are by > terms like "red Indian."[1] Imagine how dismayed the Khoisan in southern Africa might be regarding the epicanthic fold thing. ;) (Probably not all that much. They have more important things to worry about than whether or not they're Asian.) SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. >> I can't answer for them, but in the US "Asian" is ordinarily taken to >> mean what "oriental" meant before it became non-PC. Basically, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >(Probably not all that much. They have more important things to worry >about than whether or not they're Asian.) I'm a Finn. I had my epicanthal folds removed by surgery (they were obstructing my vision). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard >> that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the >> word to refer only to south Asians. > >I can't answer for them, but in the US "Asian" is ordinarily taken to >mean what "oriental" meant before it became non-PC. I disagree. Asian means someone from Asia. Oriental probably meant what you have below, which is basically someone from East Asia. I don't know what people look like in east Russia, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of them don't have epicanthic folds either. Basically, anyone >with an epicanthic fold is "Asian" in that sense. If this dismays the >Brits, The story I heard on the radio didn't say that the terminology dismayed them, but the thought that the killer was from India or thereabouts. Whatever Asian implies to a Brit. If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:07:07 -0400, Robert Lieblich > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > dismayed them, but the thought that the killer was from India or > thereabouts. Whatever Asian implies to a Brit. Hang on a minute, I'll ask around. Nope, nobody here in the office gives a flying f.ck what this guy's ethnic origin was, and we also know that US everyday usage of 'Asian' specifies a different group of people from the folk we use it to designate. I'd suggest that the usage reflects the fact that we have a comparatively large South Asian population, and far fewer people of Far Eastern origin, while the situation in the US is the other way round. We are dismayed, though, that you people continue to allow disturbed children easy access to the heavy weaponry they need to murder their classmates by the dozen, and that you seem to consider the issue beyond debate. DC > Hang on a minute, I'll ask around. Nope, nobody here in the office > gives a flying f.ck what this guy's ethnic origin was I, too, wonder why anyone cares about his ethnic origin, his sex (I've noticed that the media treats a murderer differently depending on whether they are male or female), or anything else other than the fact that he killed a lot of people. > We are dismayed, though, that you people continue to allow disturbed > children easy access to the heavy weaponry they need to murder their > classmates by the dozen, and that you seem to consider the issue > beyond debate. Would you feel better about it if he'd killed them all with a machete? How many hundred people died on September 11, 2001 due to some people with boxcutters? Is there no violent crime in the UK, where guns are illegal? What he used has no bearing on the discussion either. The only thing that matters is that he did it. SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. On 18 Apr 2007, Michael DeBusk wrote >> Hang on a minute, I'll ask around. Nope, nobody here in the >> office gives a flying f.ck what this guy's ethnic origin was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Would you feel better about it if he'd killed them all with a > machete? Riiiight. Guns are no different to hand-to-hand combat, so he'd easily be able to down the same number with a big knife. Ya' learn something every day; I was under the impression that bullets had a further "reach" than a knife, but clearly not...) > How many hundred people died on September 11, 2001 due to some > people with boxcutters? They killed them all by hitting them over the head with boxcutters? Cool. > Is there no violent crime in the UK, where guns are illegal? The murder rate's a lot lower, yes. > Riiiight. Guns are no different to hand-to-hand combat, so he'd > easily be able to down the same number with a big knife. "Easily" has nothing to do with it. He was obviously determined. What matters is not what he used to do it, but that he did it at all. Perhaps a better question to illustrate my point is: Would you feel better if he'd only killed half/one third/one quarter as many, but used something other than a gun? > Ya' learn something every day; I was under the impression that > bullets had a further "reach" than a knife, but clearly not...) So it'd have been OK if he'd been standing right next to them as he shot them? (I'd heard he was pretty close to most of them anyway, but I'm not given to watching the news.) > > How many hundred people died on September 11, 2001 due to some > > people with boxcutters? > > They killed them all by hitting them over the head with boxcutters? > Cool. Now you're being silly. If you really don't know what happened, it's OK to say so. > > Is there no violent crime in the UK, where guns are illegal? > > The murder rate's a lot lower, yes. But it isn't zero. So guns aren't the problem. Violent intent is the problem. Killing a person is a simple process, and the tool one uses doesn't change that. It starts, like any other action, inside the person and not inside what he holds in his hands. The argument (to bring this discussion almost back to topic) against guns as implements of crime has one fundamental weakness: you don't need a gun to commit a crime; you need a criminal. Making one tool impossible to get simply causes other tools to be implemented. The focus of the Virginia Tech story should be about the murderer and his victims, not about anyone's particular political agenda. http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. On 18 Apr 2007, Michael DeBusk wrote >>> Is there no violent crime in the UK, where guns are illegal? >> >> The murder rate's a lot lower, yes. > > But it isn't zero. So guns aren't the problem. Violent intent is > the problem. And in your society, the violent intent manifests itself in murder -- rather than falling short of murder -- more often than it does in other societies. If, as you appear to believe, that's unrelated to the availability of guns, then why does violent crime in the US turn murderous more often than violent crime elsewhere? > Killing a person is a simple process, and the tool > one uses doesn't change that. It starts, like any other action, > inside the person and not inside what he holds in his hands. > > The argument (to bring this discussion almost back to topic) > against guns as implements of crime No: that's not the argument. The argument is against guns as implements of *killing*, not as instruments of crime in general. > If, as you appear to believe, that's unrelated to the availability of > guns, then why does violent crime in the US turn murderous more often > than violent crime elsewhere? First, I believe that the US is simply a more violent society than the UK. Unless I'm mistaken, manners still count for something in the UK, and you folks are still taught to think about the other person. Second, the most violent cultures in the world -- the primitive societies in Africa and the Pacific Islands, where killing your neighbor is sometimes a rite of passage -- have no guns. They do their killing the old-fashioned way. Third, most gun-murders are committed with illegally obtained guns. The one(s) at Virginia Tech were not; that is a relative rarity. Millions of owners of legitimately-acquired guns have never killed a person. So, as you (almost) said, I *do* believe that the gun-murder rate in the US is not tightly corrolated to the availability of legal guns. In point of fact, where gun ownership is highest, crime tends to be low. Incidentally, the human race as a whole is becoming less violent even while it seems to be becoming more so. It's just that we hear about it sooner and more often, thanks to TV, Radio, newspapers, and Internet. So there's hope for us, I guess. By the way, I don't own a gun. I'm ambivalent about owning one. > > The argument (to bring this discussion almost back to topic) > > against guns as implements of crime > > No: that's not the argument. The argument is against guns as > implements of *killing*, not as instruments of crime in general. Replace the word "crime" with the word "killing" in what I wrote and I still stand by it. SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. > > If, as you appear to believe, that's unrelated to the availability of > > guns, then why does violent crime in the US turn murderous more often [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > UK. Unless I'm mistaken, manners still count for something in the UK, > and you folks are still taught to think about the other person. I'll bear that in mind next time I bump into a group of hoodies looking for trouble down a dark street. Maybe we could all go and have a nice cup of tea together. DC > > Riiiight. Guns are no different to hand-to-hand combat, so he'd > > easily be able to down the same number with a big knife. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > guns as implements of crime has one fundamental weakness: you don't > need a gun to commit a crime; you need a criminal. But we aren't talking about crime and criminals per se, are we? We're talking about one deranged nutter killing a bunch of students. In this country he wouldn't have had access to the hardware. He might have got to a couple of kids with a machete, but the Rugby jocks would have had a good chance of taking him out before he did the level of damage we've seen this week. Making one tool > impossible to get simply causes other tools to be implemented. The focus > of the Virginia Tech story should be about the murderer and his victims, > not about anyone's particular political agenda. Like abortion, a political issue in your country, not ours. DC >> Riiiight. Guns are no different to hand-to-hand combat, so he'd >> easily be able to down the same number with a big knife. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > of the Virginia Tech story should be about the murderer and his victims, > not about anyone's particular political agenda. Do you make the same argument for explosives? It's the people that are the cause, not the means, so everyone should be allowed free access to Semtex and detonators? Why not nuclear weapons, while we're at it? Chris R > >> Riiiight. Guns are no different to hand-to-hand combat, so he'd > >> easily be able to down the same number with a big knife. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - In fact, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does give us the right to have those. Are you aware that, before cannon and for some time after that, every Englishman below the rank of knight was required to have bow and arrows, and to practice archery weekly? Many of them shirked that duty, and a couple of kings issued new orders about it. Many of the students at Virginia Polytech do own handguns. But all of them were locked up in the armory. The school does have a gun club, whose members could have stopped the guy much earlier. BTW, the guy was brought to the U.S. by his parents when he was 8 years old. He was 22 or 23 -- adult. He purchased the guns legally, a month apart. He had never broken a law until he walked onto campus with those guns. Cece On 18 Apr 2007, Cece wrote > Many of the students at Virginia Polytech do own handguns. But > all of them were locked up in the armory. The school does have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > legally, a month apart. He had never broken a law until he > walked onto campus with those guns. It may surprise you that many of us who live in gun-controlled countries have no problem with the following proposition: "I believe in the fundamental right of an individual to be armed, and I believe that the inevitable resulting deaths by firearms is a price worth paying for that principle". That is an arguable proposition, but reasonable and consistent. But those who apparently hold that "the arming of individuals in a country is entirely unrelated to the rate of death by guns in that country" are either disingenuous, or so ideologically blinded that they refuse to believe the evidence of both statistics and - more importantly - common sense. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > On 18 Apr 2007, Cece wrote > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > they refuse to believe the evidence of both statistics and - more > importantly - common sense. I must be more red-blooded than I like to believe, since I do not feel the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was meant to give a blank check to gun ownership, even in the Founding Father's day. I think they were trying to balance state militias against the power of a federal standing army, and muddied the waters considerably. I live in a city where minorities treat shooting each other like stealing candy. The violence in Philadelphia has made national headlines, and is a pandemic among black males, inclusive of neighborhood deaths in Baltimore, D.C., and LA. I believe in restricting gun purchases, but know it is unrealistic to expect the 2nd Amendment will ever be altered through state ratification. This given, I cannot politicize the horror at V-tech. I have been crying for two days, and my university years, the high light of my life, feel tarnished themselves. Shut the f.ck up and let my country grieve and mourn its dead. Joanne > I must be more red-blooded than I like to believe, since I do not > feel the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was meant to give a > blank check to gun ownership, even in the Founding Father's day. I > think they were trying to balance state militias against the power of > a federal standing army, and muddied the waters considerably. Keep in mind that hunting was far more important back then than it is now, and that one of the first things a conquering power will do is take away the people's weapons. "The right to keep and bear arms" is, to my way of reading, rather unambiguous. What they didn't count on, and couldn't have, is the development of Saturday Night Specials, "Cop Killer" bullets, fully automatic rifles, Gansta Rap, and other abominations. So, yes, we do have to define "arms" fairly and reasonably. No "blank check", but they were not talking about the National Guard, either. > I believe in restricting gun purchases, but know it is unrealistic to > expect the 2nd Amendment will ever be altered through state > ratification. I think we should regulate them like cars (make a first-timer take training, renew the license every few years, require an eye test if it's likely the owner's sight is diminishing, revoke them in cases of dementia or the use of them in crimes, etc.) plus require a background check (which takes a few days). > This given, I cannot politicize the horror at V-tech. I have been > crying for two days, and my university years, the high light of my > life, feel tarnished themselves. Shut the f.ck up and let my country > grieve and mourn its dead. I've inadvertently done what I was trying to get people to avoid doing. You're absolutely correct. No more posts on this subject from me. SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. >I think we should regulate them like cars (make a first-timer take >training, renew the license every few years, require an eye test if it's >likely the owner's sight is diminishing, revoke them in cases of >dementia or the use of them in crimes, etc.) plus require a background >check (which takes a few days). You have made a point elsethread to say that most violent uses of guns involve stolen guns. Training the original owner doesn't do any good if the original owner is not the one in possession. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > You have made a point elsethread to say that most violent uses of > guns involve stolen guns. Training the original owner doesn't do any > good if the original owner is not the one in possession. Not only have I seen far too many intentional and malicious shootings, I've seen too many accidental shootings. ("I didn't know it was loaded!") I think training is a good thing to require of a person who's never owned a gun before. (One of several things keeping me from buying a gun for myself is that I don't have the time to attend training.) SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. >> I must be more red-blooded than I like to believe, since I do not >> feel the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was meant to give a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> life, feel tarnished themselves. Shut the f.ck up and let my country >> grieve and mourn its dead. No Michael, it isn't your argument. It is European self-righteousness which upsets me. The US has carried Europe's follies on its back since WW1, yet now Europeans get to be America's conscience? No thanks. J > No Michael, it isn't your argument. It's the fact that I'm arguing at all. The whole discussion is off topic, politically motivated (even on my side), and beyond resolution in a forum such as this. SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. On 19 Apr 2007, Michael DeBusk wrote > >> No Michael, it isn't your argument. > > It's the fact that I'm arguing at all. The whole discussion is > off topic, politically motivated (even on my side), and beyond > resolution in a forum such as this. I agree entirely with that. (FWIW, that's why I didn't respond to your last response to me. I didn't go off in a huff or dismiss your views out of hand: I very much agreed with your point that this isn't an appropriate time or place for that discussion, and that we should return to questions of usage, so I've stepped out of the discussion.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed > >> Riiiight. Guns are no different to hand-to-hand combat, so he'd > >> easily be able to down the same number with a big knife. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Why not nuclear weapons, while we're at it? I'm sure everybody would be very responsible with their thermonuclear devices and only use them for target practice in recognised clubs. Or maybe to kill a few gophers. DC > On 18 Apr 2007, Michael DeBusk wrote > >> Is there no violent crime in the UK, where guns are illegal? > > The murder rate's a lot lower, yes. According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita The U.S. is 24th. at 43 murders per million while the U.K. is 46th. at 14 murders per million. However, most of our murders here in the U.S. are committed by blacks. From the F.B.I. tables at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html about 53% of the murders in 2005 where the race of the murderer was known were committed by blacks. Looking at the population in 2005, found at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html and doing a little math, we find that white Americans commit murder at the rate of about 23 per million and black Americans commit murder at the rate of 168 per million. Blacks murder at about 7.3 times the rate of whites. So if we break the U.S. into white and black, the nation of white America would rank about 35 in the world, going back to the first referenced website, while the nation of black America would rank about 6. These are rough calculations as I've had a few drinks this evening but I believe that they are indicative of the general situation. It would be interesting to see the ratio of white murderers and black/Arab murderers in the U.K. My guess would be that it is similar to the U.S. where the minority races are significantly more violent than the majority race. >> On 18 Apr 2007, Michael DeBusk wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > calculations as I've had a few drinks this evening but I believe that they > are indicative of the general situation. Correlation does not imply causation. If you do a little more math I think you'll find that if you include not just race but income in your calculations, the correlation to race disappears. That is, violent crime and race are both strongly correlated to wealth (in the US, anyway), where violent crime decreases with increasing wealth and wealth is much lower for black Americans than for white Americans. As a result, if you don't control for income when you do your analysis you observe a strong correlation between race and violent crime, just as you have in your calculation. However, it doesn't mean you've actually identified a cause of violent crime. (As I recall, age is also a stronger predictor of violent crime than race, though not as strong as wealth -- watch out for poor teenagers, regardless of race.) Admittedly I have never done this particular calculation myself, but I've known a number of statisticians who have. I am paraphrasing them in the above. I understand, too, that it's a fairly common homework assignment in statistics courses. > However, most of our murders here in the U.S. are > committed by blacks. Taking it in this direction can only make it uglier. Let's please just drop this line of discussion. SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. >> However, most of our murders here in the U.S. are >> committed by blacks. > >Taking it in this direction can only make it uglier. Let's please just >drop this line of discussion. Actually. most murders are committed by those of low socioeconomic status, which in the USA tends to be Blacks. Here in Tucson it's mostly Hispanics. The fact that Blacks and Hispanics tend to fall in a low socioeconomic status is an American problem that must be faced. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > Hang on a minute, I'll ask around. Nope, nobody here in the office > > gives a flying f.ck what this guy's ethnic origin was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Would you feel better about it if he'd killed them all with a machete? Have there been a lot of machete school masacres over the last few years, then? > How many hundred people died on September 11, 2001 due to some people > with boxcutters? Well, not being able to take guns on planes has to have been a start. > Is there no violent crime in the UK, where guns are illegal? Of course there is. And there are murders with guns. To put things in perspective, though, several teenagers have been shot dead over the last few months in South London. It's a matter for justifiable deep concern and considerable public debate here. But we're talking about only seven kids. This is nothing to be smug about either. But I couldn't believe that on the one and only time I've visited the US, at the time of the Red Lake shooting, out of the hours of radio phone-ins we listen to driving around, not one person even mentioned that if kids couldn't get their hands on guns, they couldn't shoot people, and maybe, just maybe, gun control might have something going for it. DC > > Would you feel better about it if he'd killed them all with a machete? > > Have there been a lot of machete school masacres over the last few > years, then? IIRC a nutter with a machete charged into an infant school in Wales a few years ago. He was disarmed by the nursery nurse - she was badly injured but she saved all the children; she was given the George Medal. I wonder how she'd have fared against assault weapons. SignatureDavid ===== -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In article <1176918149.829009.91...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > vivjunkm...@lineone.net says... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > injured but she saved all the children; she was given the George Medal. > I wonder how she'd have fared against assault weapons. That case crossed my mind, as well as Hungerford and Dunblane - even with strict gun control laws we've had a couple of shooting atrocities. > In article <1176918149.829009.91...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > vivjunkm...@lineone.net says... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > few years ago. He was disarmed by the nursery nurse - she was badly > injured but she saved all the children; she was given the George Medal. It was actually Wolverhampton. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/8/newsid_2496000/2496685.stm Steve > Have there been a lot of machete school masacres over the last few > years, then? There haven't been "a lot" of school massacres of *any* type over the last few years, so I'm not getting your point. One killing is one too many. (Except for the last one the VA Tech shooter did.) So... if there had been precisely as many people killed with a machete at a school over the past few years as there have been killed with a gun, would you think we should sponsor a machete control law? > > How many hundred people died on September 11, 2001 due to some people > > with boxcutters? > > Well, not being able to take guns on planes has to have been a start. It was illegal to take a gun aboard a passenger plane well before then. Some people did it anyway. Laws don't prevent criminals from committing crimes; they never have and never will. > not one person even mentioned that if kids couldn't get their hands > on guns, they couldn't shoot people, and maybe, just maybe, gun > control might have something going for it. Perhaps they all realized that kids are already unable to *legitimately* get their hands on guns, so gun control is immaterial. SignatureThe "mypacks.net" address from which this message was sent is legitimate and not spam-trapped. It is, however, disposable. > > Have there been a lot of machete school masacres over the last few > > years, then? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Perhaps they all realized that kids are already unable to *legitimately* > get their hands on guns, so gun control is immaterial. I really don't think this is going to get us any further. If you really, truely, don't believe that there's a direct correlation between people having easy access to the tools of murder, and the number of maniacs that choose to use these tools to kill people, and you're prepared to make that case in reasoned argument, then clearly the subject is, as I said at the beginning, beyond discussion. People here in the UK were dismayed over the latest shooting; and not over the sodding usage of the word 'Asian' TVM. Most of us can't divorce our horror over the event from anger and amazement over the fact that in a civilised country free gun ownership permits these things to happen over and over again. If people in the US can make that separation, and it sounds as though you need to do it, I guess it's up to you guys. DC > > Hang on a minute, I'll ask around. Nope, nobody here in the office > > gives a flying f.ck what this guy's ethnic origin was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whether they are male or female), or anything else other than the fact > that he killed a lot of people. There's a human need to make sense of the senseless. As for what I was trying to do in my prior post, I was trying to clarify the American usage of a particular word. I don't see that anything productive will come of analyzing the killer's ethnicity. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Asian-American (tracing my ancestry to Israel) >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:07:07 -0400, Robert Lieblich >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Hang on a minute, I'll ask around. Nope, nobody here in the office >gives a flying f.ck what this guy's ethnic origin was, and we also What office do you work in? >know that US everyday usage of 'Asian' specifies a different group of >people from the folk we use it to designate. I'd suggest that the >usage reflects the fact that we have a comparatively large South Asian >population, and far fewer people of Far Eastern origin, while the >situation in the US is the other way round. So maybe they were dismayed. >We are dismayed, though, that you people continue to allow disturbed >children easy access to the heavy weaponry they need to murder their >classmates by the dozen, and that you seem to consider the issue >beyond debate. >DC If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) > >> I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard > >> that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I disagree. Asian means someone from Asia. To whom and for what purpose? You aren't being very helpful. If we're discussing specifically American usage, that would be good to know. I would then consider whether to cite examples or just let the disagreement lie there. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich And that's enough of that >>> I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard >>> that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I disagree. Asian means someone from Asia. Oriental probably meant what you > have below, which is basically someone from East Asia. I don't know what > people look like in east Russia, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of them > don't have epicanthic folds either. The American Schools of Oriental Research study what? http://www.asor.org/ SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. >> I heard on the radio that some Brits were dismayed when they heard >> that the murderer at Virginia Tech was Asian, and that they use the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Brits, they should consider how dismayed Americans are by terms like > "red Indian."[1] What's an "American"? [ ... > What's an "American"? http://www.alt-usage-english.org/intro_c.shtml#American Enjoy. > [ ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Enjoy. Wow. I could almost here the implication flying over your head, from all the way over here. Do a global S&R on the page: american::asian. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.