- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
Syrian refugees not welcome in 27 U.S. states: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...05UAlg&usg=AFQjCNEquDC6ryiEfs-rIIbby-LB-Ri4WA
Last edited:
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,983 comments
- 1,695,928 views
- 6,425
- KCCO
Just makin' sure... Could've used the movement, which probably would fit better for other readers like myself.
Link is broke mate...
Shame my state is on that list too, but that's what you get for living in the south.
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
Fixed 👍
It kinda worries me that the neighboring state to my state is accepting them for obvious reasons.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Not obvious to me? It can't be because of terrorism (Americans at home are far more dangerous than terrorists, or so the numbers say), so what is it?
- 5,646
- North Dakota
- RacingCowboy570
- RacingCowboy570
To me it's the thought of having Syrians coming in and recruiting more Americans to join up with ISIS. But that's just my opinion.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
That's the same argument some of my friends make about smoking. "Why quit smoking? Going outside and breathing the polluted air causes cancer. Breathing in exhaust fumes gives you cancer. Eating the wrong food gives you cancer. Might as well smoke"
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Switch US internet off then
And the answer is that smoking is very likely to give you cancer while going outside may do so but isn't literally likely. As I've said before, lock up your toddlers for true safety.
- 6,425
- KCCO
This reminds me of a good book, one of historical fiction, but still holds true what actually happened.
The books is called Thin Wood Walls, and was about a Japanese family during the onset of WWII, who lived in Seattle, WA. They had moved from Japan long before the war, and had no troubles within the neighborhood, and were a quite liked family within the street. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, everyone looked at every Japanese-US citizens as spies. Much to the fact, the US essentially created concentration camps for them, where they were held just like the Jews in Germany and elsewhere across Europe. Their freedoms were stripped, and human rights as well. Although everything inside of the camps were similar to life outside, the public had a hatred fear for the Japanese.
The same applies here, the exact same damn thing. People are afraid that those who assimilate into the refugees are going to kill us all, and quite frankly that's unacceptable. Yeah, it's different that they have to come here, rather than they already were here, but the point still applies, a lack of human respect towards one another is simply disgusting.
It disgusts me to hear my family talk like they are pieces of 🤬, while roving on about other non-senseless things unimportant to the US. If you are so worried about it, move to Alaska, leave, do something about it. The people coming here have nothing left, nowhere to go, and are being tossed around like an egg in a field day. Thing is, no one wants to see it dropped, but they all want to feel for them. The same people who painted their pictures with red, white, and blue who call these people trash are the true disgrace, and it's just sickening.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
And the answer is that pointing out that Americans already face danger at home is also a moot point, same as it is with going outside and breathing the air. The danger level is the same for everyone. You can debate the risk of moving Syrian and other refugees into a neighbouring state, but it's completely unrelated to the level of risk that is already there. Not to be pedantic or anything but in general, smoking is not very likely to give you cancer but is likely to kill you from all smoking related diseases combined.
Last edited:
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,274
- United States
I think Arizona has enough problems with people coming over the Mexican border, we're not going to know what to do with thousands of people from the other side of the world. And where are we going to put them anyway? In shelters which are probably more suited to housing our ever growing population of homeless people? I just don't understand all this.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
And it's the biggest cause of cancer. Increasing the refugee population of a neighbouring state to 0.00001% of the overall population* isn't going to be the biggest cause of crime-related deaths by anything like the same margins
McLaren
Premium
- 45,389
- Texas
Every time the US population hears about it, the movement is shown in a negative light, doing exactly what it is fighting against. But, you might know this if you didn't selectively quote my post to suit your remark. You think anyone wants to take BLM seriously after this incident shows followers now verbally (& physically) berating specifically white people about them being racist? The irony of that "protest" is so head banging to read as these idiots undo what actual civil rights group have been fighting for.
What's funny about your sarcasm is that there are actual people within' those who follow #BlackLivesMatter that want #BlueLivesMatter & #AllLivesMatter to die because only their cause matters & anyone speaking against or rallying for someone else is racist.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Surprisingly, no it isn't. Hidden among all the horrifying cancer statistics you find that tobacco use accounts for 30% of all cancer deaths,
That's a strawman position for a couple of reasons. First, it doesn't need to be the biggest cause of crime related deaths to be worrisome. I'm more likely to die of heart disease than cancer but that doesn't mean I'm going to take up smoking. Second, terrorists tend to want to kill large numbers of people and if they can get access to weapons or explosives they can do so. I don't know what state @CowboyAce57 is talking about, but a single terrorist incident killing "just" 20 people, would double the murder rate of South Dakota for 2014.Increasing the refugee population of a neighbouring state to 0.00001% of the overall population* isn't going to be the biggest cause of crime-related deaths by anything like the same margins
So the threat level of potentially having just a few terrorist neighbours out of many refugees is exponentially greater than the threat of having many non-terrorist neighbours move in. I agree the threat level is probably very low and likely nothing will happen, but the whole purpose of terrorism is to scare the bejeezus out of people far beyond the logical or the rational so I can understand why people would feel this way.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Smoking stats aside... even if a small number of terrorists moved in their kill rate would still be far less than the citizens who already live there.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
I feel like no one here is a human. Not every Syrian is a terrorist. In fact that's what they are trying to leave behind. The US has one of the toughest vetting processes in the world for refugees and with all the data they collect, they know who the terrorists are and who is using false identification to get in. Even if some terrorists were to sneak in like so many in this thread have their mind set on, I thought that was why you needed automatic weapons and extended magazines for? Home grown terrorism is much more a threat and it's done by right wing Christians here. Not Muslims.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Come to safety, we have beer. And Yorkshire Puddings.
We have Lorraine Kelly too but you'll get over that soon enough.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
I'm safe here. My fellow citizens have M16s with 100 round drums. They are there to protect me from suicide bombers, aren't they?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Another strawman argument. The threat of terrorism or murder or carnage from other elements of society does not change the fear and possibility of terrorism from another angle.
Lucky for you even your security guards can carry guns as this is not always the case in some countries.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I read that 77 of 110 took place in private residences, and of the 33 in public places 18 were in legal-carry areas. No more than 14% took place in public spaces that were "gun-free zones".
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
If that's the case it's my mistake for using the 92% number from a news item and then following the link to the source without vetting it myself. Apologies. I'll take it down until I can look into it further.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
The threat of terrorism from 1-10 people dosent change the fact that people are running from their lives to get away from said terrorists. Americans aren't afraid of terrorism and that's just a fact. Mass shooting(3 or more people shot) happen often in America. More often than anywhere else. These attacks are only stoking racism and prejudice. Americans seem to be afraid of foreigners and foreign terrorism. How is closing. The borders to refugees going to prevent terrorism? Before you say the gulf states should take them in, realize everyone under the Muslim religion isn't the same just as Catholics are looked down upon by Baptists and Evangelicals.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
The Pew Research Centre disagrees with the bold part. For the last 15 years it's steadily 60-70% of Americans that are very or somewhat afraid of terrorism. Seems like a big number to me:
As for the rest, this isn't the thread for that. Try asking the same question in the immigration thread or the ISIS thread.
- 6,425
- KCCO
That's a pretty bogus/unrelated chart however. That's just assuming there will be more attacks, not whether or not it strikes direct fear into them.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
How is it bogus and unrelated to a claim that, "Americans aren't afraid of terrorism and that's just a fact."? Statistics don't assume anything, people do.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
I
its an American thread so why isn't American problems allowed here? Also it dosent differentiate between Muslim terrorism and home grown terrorism. Not every attack here in the US is a Muslim attack. Dylan Roof was a terrorist attack as he used terror to I act his views.
- 3,440
- Keasbey, NJ
- Smurfybug
- Smurfybug
Correction, not Muslim attacks. ISIS attacks....
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Because the focus is specifically on immigration for the most part and there is a separate thread for that. If you continue talking about immigration and terrorism here a mod will likely just come along and tell you to talk about it in the appropriate thread.
Never said it was.
Doesn't change anything.
- 6,425
- KCCO
"Worried there will soon be another terrorist attack in the U.S." is directly referring to whether or not there will be another attack. It mentions no part of them being afraid of the attacks themselves, or people who carry them out.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,389
- Texas
1) Mass shootings (esp. in a minimum of 4) are not always terrorist attacks.
2) Mass shootings are not widely reported in the US as such, & barely, if at all, in their own regions.
Since mass shooting is a common topic in this thread now.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348...ntries-like-in-us-one-chart-proves-him-wrong/After the tragic Charleston shooting that left 9 Americans dead, President Obama said the following:
But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.
But is that true?
Since most statistics on mass shootings in the world compare apples and oranges by not correcting for population, let’s get a chart that makes sense, shall we?
Boom, here we go: The Rampage Shooting Index. Taken from a now-defunct website, it assembled data from around the world to construct a per capita mass shootings index that controls for population differences. [Update: Archived data based on OECD and other statistics can be found here.]
And since we’re just talking about members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), we can assume these 34 countries are sufficiently “advanced” to enter into the discussion.
The bottom line: The United States falls from number one due to its frequency of 38 mass shootings from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013 (which would be number one without correcting for population) to number seven.
Security Magazine commented on the data findings:
Between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013,there were 413 fatalities from mass shootings in the 34 member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). From the five-year period of 2008-2012, there were 373 total spree shooting fatalities.
According to the OECD’s latest version of the Rampage Shooting Index, a pair of deadly shootings in Switzerland in early 2013 pushed the U.S. out of the top five OECD nations for the most per capita fatalities, but the U.S. continues to have the most rampage shooting deaths (one reason could be its size – The U.S. population accounts for 25 percent of the OECD total). However, the U.S. saw a drop in mass shooting deaths from 93 in 2012 to 68 in 2013.
The U.S.’ index of 0.12 per 5,000,000 places it behind Norway (recall the Anders Breivik massacre), Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland – at half the ratio.
Another thing one might note: The top 5 countries for mass shootings per capita all have “restrictive” gun policies.
