Annual chance of American killed by refugee in terrorist attack: 1 in 3.6 billion

[Nice Squirrel]

You are still more likely to be killed by a police officer or gun toting toddler than a refugee.

Can we ban them as well?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those 7 countries, with current vetting procedures, represent no special threat.

It is insane to do it. Based on no evidence.

Based purely on prejudices.

We have a dictator making decrees based purely on his personal prejudices.

And some quibble over perhaps a thousandth of a percentage.

That's all true but imagine a small country but 30% of their refugees by statistics are terrorists. Assuming no vetting helps you to determine potential terrorists, will you let small number of refugees from that county? 1 person a year maybe? knowing that there is 30% chance that person will commit a terrorist act.

That's a compelling case to change laws through a process with checks and balances of different levels of government or if the country is a monarchy for it to follow its own rules of law. We're not a monarchy, though, and so we would need to commit to the former, not the latter case.

 

[barbos]

You are still more likely to be killed by a police officer or gun toting toddler than a refugee.

Can we ban them as well?

No, you can't ban them, however you can ban foreigners. I mean it's practically possible, unlike banning toddlers.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You are still more likely to be killed by a police officer or gun toting toddler than a refugee.

Can we ban them as well?

No, you can't ban them, however you can ban foreigners. I mean it's practically possible, unlike banning toddlers.

But both the police and toddlers pose a bigger threat then immigrants. Ever bears pose a bigger threat. I am so confused.

 

[barbos]

No, you can't ban them, however you can ban foreigners. I mean it's practically possible, unlike banning toddlers.

But both the police and toddlers pose a bigger threat then immigrants.

Combined yes, per toddler - no. And you simply can't ban people fucking and having children as a result.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But both the police and toddlers pose a bigger threat then immigrants.

Combined yes, per toddler - no. And you simply can't ban people fucking and having children as a result.

Actually toddlers kill more Americans every year.
http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

But for some reason we do nothing about it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Speaking as someone who's flown on planes which had toddlers on them, banning them from flying would be a step I'd support. There were also Muslims on the plane. They were quiet and kept to themselves and didn't bother me at all.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Speaking as someone who's flown on planes which had toddlers on them, banning them from flying would be a step I'd support. There were also Muslims on the plane. They were quiet and kept to themselves and didn't bother me at all.

I had two toddlers climbing on me in the teahouse yesterday. Damn free range children.

 

[barbos]

Combined yes, per toddler - no. And you simply can't ban people fucking and having children as a result.

Actually toddlers kill more Americans every year.
http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

not per toddler.

But for some reason we do nothing about it.

I told you the reason, it's impossible to ban them. Can't be done.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Actually toddlers kill more Americans every year.
http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

not per toddler.

But for some reason we do nothing about it.

I told you the reason, it's impossible to ban them. Can't be done.

We can deport them. They don't speak English and contribute nothing to the economy. We can also take away their guns.

 

[laughing dog]

Another interesting thing to note, a large number of the redneck hicks that voted for Trump live in places that are never targeted by terrorists. Those who live in actual big cities that tend to be targeted, like NYC and Boston that have been hit by attacks, overwhelmingly oppose Trump and his Muslim/refugee ban.

This president and his supporters are a huge disgrace.

I hope you did not just arrive that at that conclusion.

 

[barbos]

not per toddler.

But for some reason we do nothing about it.

I told you the reason, it's impossible to ban them. Can't be done.

We can deport them. They don't speak English and contribute nothing to the economy. We can also take away their guns.

That's OK, Trump barely speaks English himself and does not contribute to the economy as well.

 

[untermensche]

Those 7 countries, with current vetting procedures, represent no special threat.

It is insane to do it. Based on no evidence.

Based purely on prejudices.

We have a dictator making decrees based purely on his personal prejudices.

And some quibble over perhaps a thousandth of a percentage.

That's all true but imagine a small country but 30% of their refugees by statistics are terrorists. Assuming no vetting helps you to determine potential terrorists, will you let small number of refugees from that county? 1 person a year maybe? knowing that there is 30% chance that person will commit a terrorist act.

Talking about imaginary numbers that have no connection to anything real is irrational.

There is no unusual threat from these nations, when vetted.

It is a capricious and insane dictate.

 

[fast]

lightnings strikes surprisingly large number of people.

Jihadists kill about 15 Americans per year. Lightening kills about 40 Americans per year.

Okay, but when I learn that 14/15 Jihadists are rainmakers, I'm gonna have something else to say.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If Trump and the GOP manage to bork Obamacare in the USA, more Americans will die losing adequate health care than from terrorism. Would you vote for a terrorist with blood on their hands?

 

[barbos]

That's all true but imagine a small country but 30% of their refugees by statistics are terrorists. Assuming no vetting helps you to determine potential terrorists, will you let small number of refugees from that county? 1 person a year maybe? knowing that there is 30% chance that person will commit a terrorist act.

Talking about imaginary numbers that have no connection to anything real is irrational.

There is no unusual threat from these nations, when vetted.

It is a capricious and insane dictate.

How is that irrational? I am just trying to explain that using combined statistics is bullshit. And vetting, what vetting? Tsarnaev family were vetted, by ignoring warnings from evil russian authorities.

 

[untermensche]

Talking about imaginary numbers that have no connection to anything real is irrational.

There is no unusual threat from these nations, when vetted.

It is a capricious and insane dictate.

How is that irrational? I am just trying to explain that using combined statistics is bullshit. And vetting, what vetting? Tsarnaev family were vetted, by ignoring warnings from evil russian authorities.

It is irrational because it has no connection to anything real.

The Tsarnez family just shows the absurdity of this ban pulled from Trump's fat ass.

They did not come from a banned nation.

 

[barbos]

How is that irrational? I am just trying to explain that using combined statistics is bullshit. And vetting, what vetting? Tsarnaev family were vetted, by ignoring warnings from evil russian authorities.

It is irrational because it has no connection to anything real.

I disagree.

The Tsarnez family just shows the absurdity of this ban pulled from Trump's fat ass.

They did not come from a banned nation.

I was not talking about Trump and his stupid bans. I was talking about 1/3.6bil number which is ridiculously wrong.

 

[untermensche]

It is irrational because it has no connection to anything real.

I disagree.

The Tsarnez family just shows the absurdity of this ban pulled from Trump's fat ass.

They did not come from a banned nation.

I was not talking about Trump and his stupid bans. I was talking about 1/3.6bil number which is ridiculously wrong.

You're quibbling over meaninglessness.

There is no unusual threat from these nations.

They were plucked straight from Trump's ass. Except of course they are primarily Muslim nations. Plucked from Trump's ignorant and prejudiced ass.

That is the only salient point.

 

[barbos]

I disagree.

The Tsarnez family just shows the absurdity of this ban pulled from Trump's fat ass.

They did not come from a banned nation.

I was not talking about Trump and his stupid bans. I was talking about 1/3.6bil number which is ridiculously wrong.

You're quibbling over meaninglessness.

There is no unusual threat from these nations.

They were plucked straight from Trump's ass. Except of course they are primarily Muslim nations. Plucked from Trump's ignorant and prejudiced ass.

That is the only salient point.

I am not quibbling about that. I am quibbling about 1/3.6bil number.