14 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Crime is so bad in the USA right now. The robbers look for weakness not the color of your skin, but if you are pretty that's a extra plus against you.

Especially at 4 am on a subway in New York City.  

Why would you be alone in a subway at that time of night as a woman?  You're a target.  Plain and simple.  Not racial, Not sexist, just common sense

Racially tinged remarks and replies reported and removed.  

 

Vid here:

https://nypost.com/2021/12/15/thai-model-recalls-horrifying-manhattan-subway-attack/

9 hours ago, sambum said:

(P.S. Interesting that you should imply that anybody taking the subway in NY at 4 am in the morning should be armed - IMHO, the fact that it is every American's right to bear arms is probably the reason why there is so much violent crime anyway.)

Most of the crime is committed in democrat controled cities where it is illegal to carry a weapon. I am from outside chicago. Chicago does not allow guns yet over 1000 murdered this year and shootings are so common that over 50 in a weekend is a regular occurance.  Out here many people carry guns legally and there is almost no crime. Surround me with legally armed citizens anytime, they are not the problem and the people who would be a problem are far less likely to start any problems.

33 minutes ago, Tim207 said:

Most of the crime is committed in democrat controled cities where it is illegal to carry a weapon. I am from outside chicago. Chicago does not allow guns yet over 1000 murdered this year and shootings are so common that over 50 in a weekend is a regular occurance.  Out here many people carry guns legally and there is almost no crime. Surround me with legally armed citizens anytime, they are not the problem and the people who would be a problem are far less likely to start any problems.

Gonna have to agree with you on this.  

20 hours ago, malibukid said:

glad i am over here.

Yep, no place better to be. 

 

Everyday gets better and better here in Thailand 

9 hours ago, Thai Visa Member 999999 said:

Your cited article claims that only Detroit would fall in the 2% figure. The US' violent crime rate, according to the article,

You could have an argument in an empty room. As said I found a few sources giving that number..... and even the one quoted above gives cities with higher than 1 in 50, You have to look further down the list.... I doubt someone lying bleeding and robbed thinks about whether it is 1 in 49 or 1 in 52. 

St. Louis, Missouri

• Crime rate score… 20.9
• Likelihood of encountering danger… 1 in 48 people
•  

8 hours ago, Tim207 said:

Most of the crime is committed in democrat controled cities where it is illegal to carry a weapon. I am from outside chicago. Chicago does not allow guns yet over 1000 murdered this year and shootings are so common that over 50 in a weekend is a regular occurance.  Out here many people carry guns legally and there is almost no crime. Surround me with legally armed citizens anytime, they are not the problem and the people who would be a problem are far less likely to start any problems.

Your factual reply completely demolishes that nonsense post.

On 12/16/2021 at 10:31 PM, jacko45k said:

Although I feel confident to say your experiences and comments do not persuade me that The Skytrain in Bangkok is more dangerous than NYC Subway.

And I wouldn't try to persuade you so either. I never made any such analogy re public transportation. I only related personal anecdotal experience. And I have experienced the NYC subway back in the 1980's during perhaps one of its most dangerous times. Today is like a cakewalk compared to those days. But just like any big city, there are times and places where you had best have some street-smarts if you're going to think about treading on the territory of some scumbag gutter dwelling criminals and there are those where any naive foreigner can walk through with no problems. The Skytrain seems to be quite safe, but on the other hand, I've also seen a number of knifings and shootings in otherwise-thought-to-be safe areas around BKK. Of course, the odd crime will happen anywhere in big cities. I don't know what the stats show, but I don't think BKK is any kind of exceptionally safe city by any stretch of the imagination. And if the stats say it is... I'd have to wonder, with some pretty strong skepticism, at where the stats were drawn and how the stats were collected and reported. I think it is fairly well known how crime or accident reporting happens (or doesn't) here.

14 hours ago, Tim207 said:

Most of the crime is committed in democrat controled cities where it is illegal to carry a weapon. I am from outside chicago. Chicago does not allow guns yet over 1000 murdered this year and shootings are so common that over 50 in a weekend is a regular occurance.  Out here many people carry guns legally and there is almost no crime. Surround me with legally armed citizens anytime, they are not the problem and the people who would be a problem are far less likely to start any problems.

"Chicago does not allow guns ...................."

 

Very misleading, actually -  "The state police issue licenses for the concealed carry of handguns to qualified applicants age 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course." 

 

And according to the Chicago Sun-Times:-

"Homicides in Chicago: a list of every victim

Graphics by Jesse Howe and Andy Boyle

Updated: December 18th, 2021

This database lists the names of everyone killed by another person in the city of Chicago. It’s compiled from Chicago Sun-Times reporting and information from law enforcement agencies and the Cook County medical examiner’s office and updated every day.
771 victims were killed in Chicago in 2021"

 

Still,  an awful lot of homicides, but I presume not all by guns!

6 hours ago, DeaconJohn said:

Your factual reply completely demolishes that nonsense post.

"Factual"?

4 hours ago, sambum said:

"Chicago does not allow guns ...................."

 

Very misleading, actually -  "The state police issue licenses for the concealed carry of handguns to qualified applicants age 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course." 

 

I don't come here to discuss the minutia of chicago political issues nor do i believe anyone else here would be interested.  For brevity sake I did not go into detail. While technically guns are not banned, the laws in chicago make it nearly impossible to go about your normal life armed legally. Laws on where it is illegal to go with a firearm are numerous and complicate, and were designed that way purposely to make it unfeasable.

 

Who is being "Very missleading" ?  What does 

 

"The state police issue licenses for the concealed carry of handguns to qualified applicants age 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course." 

 

have to do with chicago laws? And as for

 

5 hours ago, sambum said:

771 victims were killed in Chicago in 2021

Technically accurate but meant to be missleading. You would know that if you had any real life knowledge of chicago and were not just searching the internet for factoids to nitpick because you have no real argument. Chicago has political boundaries that are fairly nebulous and seemingly arbitrary. While there is a reason for it, I won't bother explaining how this came to be. Regardless, what is and is not within the political boundaries of chicago is not visibly apparent. You can have building complexes, and even individual buildings (i believe), partially inside and partially outside the chicago boundary. Thus for any statistics with relevancy we use "cook county" locally to mean "chicago" because for the most prt they are indistiguishable. 

 

December 1 "cook county" crossed the 1000 murders mark for 2021, over 900 of which were "gun related" whatever that means. Meanwhile, out here where people can legally go about their lives carrying firearms and many do, crime, and particularly violent crime, is rare.

 

Despite your attempt to discredit my statement with irrelevancies you made no real argument. Your views are an emotional knee jerk reaction with shallow understanding of a complex issue. Sadly far to common in the world.

27 minutes ago, Tim207 said:

I don't come here to discuss the minutia of chicago political issues nor do i believe anyone else here would be interested.  For brevity sake I did not go into detail. While technically guns are not banned, the laws in chicago make it nearly impossible to go about your normal life armed legally. Laws on where it is illegal to go with a firearm are numerous and complicate, and were designed that way purposely to make it unfeasable.

 

Who is being "Very missleading" ?  What does 

 

"The state police issue licenses for the concealed carry of handguns to qualified applicants age 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course." 

 

have to do with chicago laws? And as for

 

Technically accurate but meant to be missleading. You would know that if you had any real life knowledge of chicago and were not just searching the internet for factoids to nitpick because you have no real argument. Chicago has political boundaries that are fairly nebulous and seemingly arbitrary. While there is a reason for it, I won't bother explaining how this came to be. Regardless, what is and is not within the political boundaries of chicago is not visibly apparent. You can have building complexes, and even individual buildings (i believe), partially inside and partially outside the chicago boundary. Thus for any statistics with relevancy we use "cook county" locally to mean "chicago" because for the most prt they are indistiguishable. 

 

December 1 "cook county" crossed the 1000 murders mark for 2021, over 900 of which were "gun related" whatever that means. Meanwhile, out here where people can legally go about their lives carrying firearms and many do, crime, and particularly violent crime, is rare.

 

Despite your attempt to discredit my statement with irrelevancies you made no real argument. Your views are an emotional knee jerk reaction with shallow understanding of a complex issue. Sadly far to common in the world.

I am not on here to cause an argument, as you are implying. I have been "on here" for long enough to see when someone is!

 

I will merely "copy and paste" your first 2 sentences, and let others be the judge:-

 

"I don't come here to discuss the minutia of chicago political issues nor do i believe anyone else here would be interested.  For brevity sake I did not go into detail."

 

 

2 minutes ago, sambum said:

I am not on here to cause an argument, as you are implying. I have been "on here" for long enough to see when someone is!

 

I will merely "copy and paste" your first 2 sentences, and let others be the judge:-

 

"I don't come here to discuss the minutia of chicago political issues nor do i believe anyone else here would be interested.  For brevity sake I did not go into detail."

 

 

And indeed I did not go into detail in my initial comment nor was I intentionally discussing chicago politics. I was only using it as an example to show you that your original comment showed little understanding of the issue because I am well aquainted with my local peculularities. You accused me of being missleading so I expanded on the topic to be very clear. Now you take a snippet from the expanded explaination you instigated, which is referring to why my original comment was breif, and insinuate that I am being disingenuous because that comment does not comply with what I stated referring to my original comment. LOL

 

I truly do not have any interest in discussing politics as it is generally unproductive. My original comment was merely to point out there is more to the issue than the flippant comments like yours that tend to drown out any rational thought.

13 hours ago, Tim207 said:

And indeed I did not go into detail in my initial comment nor was I intentionally discussing chicago politics. I was only using it as an example to show you that your original comment showed little understanding of the issue because I am well aquainted with my local peculularities. You accused me of being missleading so I expanded on the topic to be very clear. Now you take a snippet from the expanded explaination you instigated, which is referring to why my original comment was breif, and insinuate that I am being disingenuous because that comment does not comply with what I stated referring to my original comment. LOL

 

I truly do not have any interest in discussing politics as it is generally unproductive. My original comment was merely to point out there is more to the issue than the flippant comments like yours that tend to drown out any rational thought.

Your very first sentence had political implications - .................democrat control(l)ed cities", but you now say you were not intentionally discussing Chicago politics - OK explanation accepted.

 

Your third sentence stated "Chicago does not allow guns yet over 1000 murdered this year"

 

I was not "nitpicking" in my reply - merely quoting FACTS - firstly, I presume that if someone over the age of 21  passes a 16 hour course then they are legally allowed to carry a handgun, and the figures that I quoted were taken from a database which got the information from what I assumed to be reputable sources, i.e. the Chicago Sun-Times, (which was updated on December 18th 2021,) law enforcement agencies, and the Cook County medical examiner's office which states that  "771 victims were killed in Chicago in 2021", You quote "December 1 "cook county" crossed the 1000 murders mark for 2021, over 900 of which were "gun related"..............." without any reference to back up that claim.

 

You claim "Despite your attempt to discredit my statement with irrelevancies you made no real argument" At the risk of repeating myself, I am not on here to have an argument, but I have been on here  long enough to know when someone is, and your dismissal of my comments as being "flippant" merely confirms this.

 

I appreciate that you are much closer to the situation than I am, and consequently have more "first hand knowledge" than I do, but I am certainly not being openly  antagonistic in my post, and my highlighting of "For brevity sake" was merely to show that your reply was anything but! 

 

 

 

 

 

On 12/17/2021 at 12:56 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

She may have been targeted because She was Asian , or the beating may have been because She was Asian and the robbery was just a robbery and the punches were for being Asian ?

lots of may have beens eh

2 minutes ago, Harveyboy said:

lots of may have beens eh

Yes , we are having a discussion about it and giving possibilities , feel free to join in with the discussion if you have anything to add 

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes , we are having a discussion about it and giving possibilities , feel free to join in with the discussion if you have anything to add 

tks

Some off topic posts discussing other forum members have been removed. 

On 12/17/2021 at 8:44 AM, BritManToo said:

Are they claiming the black attacker was a white supremacist?

He can identify as anything he wants nowadays

On 12/16/2021 at 5:56 PM, jacko45k said:

And 61% of the population are white, and 18-19% black.

In NYC 30% white, 20% black, 30% hispanic, and 15% Asian.  Someone left out one race out of the stats?