No. I just showed why the 11 billion number is a meaningless number. That number only matters if the only thing you care about is whether you, personally, will get killed, and you don’t care if anyone else gets killed. Which seems kind of selfish, and leads to stupid results like letting in a known serial killer while deporting your family because statistically your family is more likely to kill you than this one known serial killer is.

You keep making these absurd comparisons, between serial killers to tigers and so forth, so I’m just going to ask right out: How dangerous do you think syrian refugees are? If your problem with taking them in is that there’s people over there that are willing to kill, well that’s no different than the people over here, so what is it exactly that makes them so dangerous, and letting refugees come over such a huge risk?

As I noted above, if ‘some of them might turn out to be a risk, so we should keep them out/treat them as this huge threat’ then according to the numbers the people saying so should be fleeing the country as fast as possible, as the much higher threat is already within the borders.

For someone to be consistent they either brush off the ‘threat’ posed by refugees as insignificant(which is not to say that no security should be employed, merely that it be proportional and rational according to how much of a threat actually exists) as not a notable problem compared to any number of other, much bigger threats, or they treat the ‘threat’ posed by refugees as a notable problem worth significant attention and pay even more attention to the numerous other problems which are much, much worse.

I don’t know why a terrorist would have to be super-dedicated to pretend to be a refugee. Is that harder than pretending to be a tourist, businessman, or student?

Extremely so, John Oliver covered the topic and the number of hoops someone has to jump through just to qualify to maybe be allowed in the US as a refugee is both numerous and highly time-consuming. ‘Investigated by multiple government agencies over the course of a year and a half to two years at least, and where the first step has a less than 1% acceptance rate‘ numerous and time-consuming. And that was before the House voted to make the process even more difficult to get through.

That’s not just insanely dedicated, it’s insanely stupid for someone planning on coming to the US to kill people to deliberately place themselves in a position of close scrutiny by multiple government agencies, in a process where the overwhelming majority of applicants are rejected, given there are much easier and less ‘risky’ ways to come to the US. Terrorists are stupid, but they’re not generally that stupid(or perhaps more accurately ‘stupid in that particular fashion).

The numbers don’t make that clear until you provide us with clear numbers, and not junk numbers.

In which case Vox provided some ‘clear numbers’ as well.

‘Note: Several readers have argued that Trump Jr.’s tweet solely refers to Syrian refugees. In that case: Since October of 2015, the United States has admitted roughly 8,000 Syrian refugees. Not one has committed an act of terrorism. That’s zero deadly Skittles.‘

CATO also threw together a 28 page report on the subject, with plenty of numbers for you to dig through if you care to. Short version is that out of the massive number of people coming into the country the number that turn out to be terrorists, or commit terrorist acts is minuscule.

(You may be pleased to note that the ‘clear numbers’ they used place the odds of an american being killed by a foreign terrorist on US soil is ‘only’ 1 in 3.6 million per year, and yes, that’s including the 9/11 deaths. It’s still a one in several millions odds, but at least it’s not billions, right?)

(And no, I am not saying that refugees will kill people at the rate that tigers do. I am saying that your numbers are so meaningless that if they WERE that deadly, your stupid 3 in 11 billion number would not necessarily reflect that fact, because the number is actually THAT stupid.)

If the numbers are ‘stupid’ it’s because it’s based upon an even more idiotic statement/implication. When one person makes an absurd claim it’s only natural that refuting it is likely going to come across as more than a little ridiculous.

Blame the people who implied that 3 skittles out of a bowl’s worth are deadly(or even might be) for the ‘stupid numbers’, not the people who crunched the numbers to see just how big that ‘bowl’ would have to be for the original claim to be even remotely accurate.