Democrats are trying to downplay Islamic terrorism again

>let's avoid all other violent crimes and let's not look at countries like France for what happens when more refugees and migrants come in

Here's the source:

archive.is/Jp9YT

First off I'd like to see this done by state and not just blanket across the US.
Second I'd like to see you tell this to anyone living in a shit part of Paris, Cologne, Stockholm, Manchester, etc.
Thirdly, you can take precautions for all of those except meteors. The difference is nobody is calling you bigoted against stormy weather when you say you're gonna stay inside on a rainy evening, and nobody is trying to take away the roof you fucking paid for or stop people from being able to get a roof because it's offensive to stormy weather.
FUCK these people, seriously, pic semi-related.

So basically the vibe I'm getting from this graph is that we need to ban lightning as well with all those other things.

Well I really can't argue with that.

Here's the Twitter of the guy who made this pic:

twitter.com/@donnermaps

Every time you admit an immigrant into the country you accept the risk that they will turn out to be a murderer, no matter what country they're from or reason they come, so you either need to let no one in from anywhere or let a large amount of people in from anywhere, there is no logical in between.

i dont believe it ive seen 3 people die from those fucking metal boxes

Ah, but you see, the oh so funny meme image says HIT by lightning, not killed by lightning. Of course, the rest of it cites being killed.

Typical liberal bullshit lying with statistics as usual.

>Liberals cannot into statistical analysis
Where are those statistics gathered? I am willing to bet location plays a big factor in these. You can hardly say someone in the middle of Michigan is at the same risk of getting stabbed by a migrant than some poor girl in Germany but because the odds are lower here we should import Muslims just like Germany and make the numbers more equal?

Fuck me.

I just checked his sources because I applied some critical thinking and thought, there is no fucking way more people die from meteorite strikes than refugee/illegal terrorist attacks.

The meteor strike stat is over a lifetime, not per year.

Basically this image was made by a liberal who can't into math (what a fucking surprise).

So even if this kills 1-2 ppl only... whos life is ok to sacrifice? They never talk about the real people that little dot represents. 29 here, 5 there, 3 more over there, who's life is it acceptable to sacrifice to have some extra Arabic people in the country. Will they make the sacrifice? Really shakes your drink.

I like how they just specify terrorist attacks. If they included any homicide the circle would be massive.

>Democrats are trying to downplay Islamic terrorism again.

Aren't they always?

>Tremble with FEAR!!!!
What a nice effective strawman.

It's not that people are afraid of it. It's that people don't want that shit in their country.
Accepting these people in your country is absolutely retarded, and it's even more retarded accepting them knowing full well that some of them are terrorists sneaking into your country.

I know Democrats hate Democracy, but America is pretty much a democratic country. People have a say in these things, and if people don't want exploding goat fuckers in their countries that's what they should get. Anything else would be undemocratic.

Fuck liberals. Islam is pure shit.

Even Buddhists want them dead.

...

this was my first thought when I saw the OP, good smuggie

Islamic terrorism is meaningless.

The only reason islamic terror acts are committed are to bait the west into decade long trillion dollar wars.

If we want to save lives, lower the speed limit.

>illegal immigrant
I see what you did there

Notice how they worded that. "Refugee" and "illegal immigrant in a terrorist attack" dance around both Muslim terrorism as a whole and illegal immigrants in non terrorist killings.

>Islamic terrorism is only confined to the west

Apply the stats to being black, unarmed and shot by a cop.

No one is trying to make my chances of dying from lightning or vending machines more likely.

There are traitors in this country actively trying to make it more likely I get killed by refugee terrorists.

How the fuck do you get hurt by a vending machine unless you go full nig and try and shake it while standing in front of it?

That's exactly how. You shake/kick it and it falls on you, crushing you to death. It actually happens pretty often, it's why every vending machine has a "do not tip" warning on it that no one reads. I like to peel those stickers off and stick them on fedoras though.

Someone edit this to be about white cops shooting unarmed blacks instead of terrorism and send it right back to the source

They split terrorism into two different circles, and honestly, I think I might call bullshit anyway, I'm pretty sure there's no way the meteorite death is more likely.

How big is a small meteorite?

THANKS FOR CORRECTING THE RECORD
PLEASE INSTRUCT MR COMBETTA TO DELETE YOUR EMAILS
RIGHT AFTER YOU FUCKING KILL YOURSELF

Why people who make this shit are so dumb
You cannot force vending machines to stop killing
You cannot change meteorites route
But you can stop rapefugees or illegals

>enormous circle
I'll make it. It'll be statistically correct too.

I can't wait.

You cold make this same argument for guns.

Shit, I should have seen this coming. (real picture next)

The sources listed literally contradict the image.

Lightning doesn't leach welfare and doesn't have sexual emergencies near pools.

Fucking hell, it's too damn big

The percentage of a black person being a victim of black crime isn't the same as the percentage of an average US citizen being a victim of black crime.

Surely you want BVA / total pop.?

Oops, made some text mistakes. Fixed

>so let's increase the risk by importing more refugees

>don't be a coward and ignore the terrorists
>just die like a good goy if you happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time

Democrats, protecting the common people

>The percentage of a black person being a victim of black crime isn't the same as the percentage of an average US citizen being a victim of black crime.

>Surely you want BVA / total pop.?

Black or other race victim is not factored in. It's just if it's a black person committing a violent crime leading to an arrest.
I could have picked total black violent arrests/Total violent arrests, but that would just be a percentage of how many violent criminals are black.
Instead I went for total black violent arrests/Black population, to be a percentage of how many black people are violent criminals.
Now that I think of it, a closer statistic would be victims of violent black people / total us population. I should have thought of that sooner. Damn.

Skittles are in vending machines stupid

I mean that if you want the percentage chance that you'll be involved in a BVA-crime in a given year then it should be number of BVA in a year / the total population of the U.S.

>Now that I think of it, a closer statistic would be victims of violent black people / total us population
Yeah, that's what I meant. I phrased it poorly.

beautiful, user. doing god's work

>37 deaths by vending machine between 1978 and 1995
>Deadlier than Islam

>victims of violent black people
Trying to find that number is hard. Jewogle isn't helping at all

Witness my digits, libs will soon get a giant redpill, nay, a red suppository forced upon them in the form of a #notallmuslims operating in a lefty stronghold. Maximum pilling will occur that day.

I thought the federal crime bureau kept statistics on murder by race? Or is that just a state-by-state thing? You could probably pare it down to proven murders committed by blacks and you'd still wind up with a very large dot.

10/10 will post on kikebook

amazing

>if you decide to take a risk it's illogical to try to minimize that risk, I mean you're taking a risk already so trying to limit it in anyways is illogical

you're retarded

How big does the circle need to be before it's not considered cowardice to be afraid?

I don't know about anyone else but I'm instantly put off by the shaming that gets used in these and instantly see manipulation.

Anyway, people are only prudent to eliminate the potential causes of death that they can from their lives. I mean the majority of the reason people don't get hit by lightning much is because they don't go walking around in an open field holding a big metal rod in the air.

And this whole refugees hardly ever kill people in terrorist attacks thing, what do they call the massacres in Lebanon by 'former' Palestinian refugees during the civil war. Depending on your definition of refugee and terrorist and country it occurs in, the number could be quite large.

...

You have to go back

Now do one for school shootings and pedophiles. Think of the children.

So you want to increase that pixel?
That's fucking genius.

Kek nice dubs of truth

I do remember seeing a "victim by black offender" published statistic somewhere, but I'm lacking on where to find it.

Yeah, based on their single pixel, in the entire united states, there is only a 1.85% chance a single person will be killed

>feuls

If you just wanted to do murder and not violent crime, it would be 0.00085% chance and the dot would have a 436px diameter, based off of 2013 data:
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

2 * sqrt(2698/(315388533)/(5.74e-11)/pi) = 436

what point is this making? what is the black circle?

If the orange circle represents your chances of getting hit by lightning the next year, the black circle represents the chances a random black person you see is going to commit a crime in the next year

100% bullshit
AFAIK there was just 1 registered meteorite death in out history (and i'm not even certain about that one)

That's still great.

It's better to indisputably credible information than what looks like fear-mongering propaganda. If people want to question your data then they'll find out it's WORSE then you said and that'll crush their cognitive dissonance.

Difference is three of those things are accidental; without intent.

The others, someone decided they would go and kill someone.

Just because it doesn't happen as often does not make it acceptable, especially when steps can be made to prevent them.

Why should you be only killed in terrorist attack? Illegal immigrants assault people every day and kill people every week.

>It's better to have* indisputably...

The argument is not that it should be acceptable, but that there's no rationale for constructing policy to prevent it.

At least not before our antimeteorite policy.

Our budget is already way in the red, we need to get our priorities in order.