No way it can be that high

No way it can be that high.

You can only get such a number by wildly changing the definition of what a refugee is.

No. Cafe a shit hiding behind "lol jus humor bro" as an excuse for being a blatant liberal rag. Also I like the effort taken to use the cheap Chinese MAGA hat in their picture.

Its not, they either massively changed their definition of refugee or just made up some bullshit number. But when it gets into the billions like this post says, it is physically impossible. When considering the number of refugee attacks that have happened recently, which is in the thousands documented, it would imply mathematically that the earth has a population well over 90 billion, which is completely false obviously.

Tl;dr

Their ((statistic)) can only be true if earth population was over 90 billion.

I would prefer it to be a zero percent chance, attainable by refusing all refugees

I like this piece of propaganda, it makes it seem like military aged males from failed states with totally different values and cultural norms, some completely hostile to their Western counterparts, are as harmless as wild puppies. They never mention the terrorist attacks, or the rapes and murders in Europe, or how something like out of 100,000 refugees that were granted asylum in Sweden, only like 100 of them actually got jobs within the last year.

It's effective, it makes people think we're just stopping innocent dads from hugging their kids with these immigration restrictions. All because of some poem written by a Marxist at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty that people seem to think is a legal binding document. "These poor refugees are crying, now disregard borders and laws and let them in already, they're no danger to you."

These people miss the point entirely. It's not about being directly killed by a refugee (though it's much more likely they WILL rape your daughter/wife). It's about how thousands of refugees/migrants/immigrants cluster into insulated self-made ghettos so they can perpetuate their barbarous ideology and indoctrinate others into their ranks until you have a festering breeding ground of violence and oppression growing in the heart of your own cities.

Damn, based Jap.

Wouldn't the dude whp killed all those fags raise this number by himself?

Wow. Talk about a bubble, Pol really has become a damn safe space.

>Only 2 people in the entire world will be killed by refugees.

>the same libs that condemn the terrorist attacks on Nice etc, and offer their greatest sympathies will literally turn around on a dime and then go on to say that we need to allow the people in

why is this allowed?

>>the same libs that condemn the terrorist attacks on Nice etc


They did? Because all I saw were people spouting #notallmuslims

I mean the Paris attackers were refugees ffs

German/Swedish crime statistics by refugees and undocumented persons?

...

A 1% chance of another terror attack from radical muslim is still too high. It should be zero.

>2 people killed by refugees
>12 people were killed by that tunisian guy
hmmm....

same math used to predict trump had a 2 percent chance of winning and look where we are. Don't trust any statistics

not all muslims

2 of them were. The other 7 weren't.

I mean, they weren't Frenchmen, but they were certainly homegrown.

>divide world population by 2
>this is the chance of being killed by a refugee
really makes you go hmmm

Howsabout raped by a refugee?

1 in 3

It's not about terrorism, it's because the majority of them end up on welfare

Chances of having to support refugee: 1 in 1.

Actually it's 1:1

dang japan with a good post

Daily reminder that the people afraid of terrorism who whine about "protecting" America are dumbfuck crackers from rural areas that terrorists would never target

wtf, theres good statistics. And you cant really evaluate statistics based on their outcomes, but rather on their criteria or long time performance.

if i claim that a dice will 100% roll 6, and it does, is it a good prediction/

Top. Saved for posting on facebook arguments

Why do liberals always convert everything to misleading statistics to justify their view point?

>10 out of 10 smart people are liberals

Is pretty much what they always sound like to me.

>You can only make decisions based on chance of dying

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

so only two people were killed by refugees?

>harmless as wild puppies
just fyi packs of wild dogs will straight up kill people. Happens in rural areas some times

>it has to be me thats being killed for me to care
liberals have no soul confirmed!!!

Nobody would see this inane blathering if it weren't spammed, and once they see it they will never be persuaded by it because it's so wildly uninformed.

1 in 3.64 billion... in what fucking time frame?
Any given second? Day? Week? Year? Lifetime?

couldn't have said it better myself.

That's because these people lack clairvoyance, Nippon. NO ONE can see ahead anymore. It's a side-effect of being self-righteous to the level of narcissism. They see the tree (muh poor refugee kids) and miss the forest (destruction of our society as we know it).

Or perhaps they do and just don't care.

>black immigrants are actually less bad than native blacks
this is some hilarious data.

Now what are the odds of a refugee killing anyone? Two subtle differences I added.
First I inverted it from any death being caused by a refuge, to a refuge causing any death. Then I switched it from a refugee causing my death (of course very unlikely) to a refugee causing any death.
I just computed the odds, and it's a 100% chance so far in every western country that has taken refugees.

>No way it can be that high.
They are basing those numbers off of current data for attacks in the US.

i.e. At this point in time, at this level of immigration from muslim countries, your odds of being killed by one are very low.

What's left out is that the odds will rapidly increase as the muslim population increases. Regressives want to import hundreds of thousands of muslims.
As a way of picturing the disparity, use any European country of 30 years ago as an allegory to the US of today. In European country of 30 years ago, the odds of being killed by a muslim were almost non-existant. Now consider that country today, after 30 years of steady muslim immigration, with terrorist attacks almost weekly.


So yes, the odds are currently that high, but that is not the whole story.

Oy vey

>"Of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted from 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 were terrorists, which amounted to 0.00062 percent of the total. In other words, one terrorist entered as a refugee for every 162,625 refugees who were not terrorists. Refugees were not very successful at killing Americans in terrorist attacks. Of the 20, only three were successful in their attacks, killing a total of three people."

>To arrive at the "1 in 3.64 billion per year" statistic, Alex Nowrasteh, the Cato study’s author, told us he added up the nation’s population for each year between 1975 and 2015, and then divided the total by the three deaths. Lieu omitted the "per year," portion in his claim, though we did not view this as an egregious oversight.

in the US its 1 in 5000

in europe its 1 in 15

Fucking nihongo-chan.

Global populationnis like 6.5m and we've had well over 3 incidents so...

The xenophobes know best.

>wag the dopes

Fuck man, this shit got me in a tizzy
I need to buy a gun, just in case