Al,
If you'd bothered to read the articles I pointed to, you would have had your explanation, suitably backed up. The one in four claim is meaningless as it is not based in fact. Why is this? Because those statistics are not available. Also, as most of the organisations who collect and use these numbers for something else than their own agendas point out, comparisons with other countries are problematic and frequently irrelevant because of the varying definitions of the crimes and how statistics are collected.
You'd know this if you had read the articles. You'd know that Australia topping the kidnap statistics is a perfect example of what happens when you do compare crime statistics without bothering to check the numbers.
But instead you went for the drama and for the easy but largely irrelevant points. Fail.
BTW, I notice that you're not actually backing up anything yourself. There are no figures to your increased crime hints in Sweden, only a link to dramatic play with numbers by a hate group calling themselves a think tank, no figures to support that supposed sudden increase in crime proportional to the sudden increase in Syrian refugees. Nothing but guesses. And why is that? Because there are no publicly available numbers on what they claim, and because they use the numbers that are available in, shall we say, a somewhat liberal fashion. It's akin to that lawyer Scrap posted a video of the other day, about radical Islam support.
Of course, closing the US borders for Muslims might bring down something. Maybe one or two of the millions of people who'd otherwise have crossed that border would commit their crimes somewhere else. Who knows? You sure don't, and Trump doesn't, because none of you has backed up anything. So yes, I'm still calling that statement bigoted since the only thing it does is singling out a group.
You know what would help even more than shutting out the Muslims? Closing those borders for everybody.
Yet doing that would not have prevented Orlando either.
Well that was all a big text dump.
You sent in links? I saw one link you posted, citing low percentage statistics to rape in Sweden. I do not know the organisation that posted and (taking advice from you to dismiss single article reporting on something as an anomaly and likely a hate group with their own agenda) I will accord you the same respect.
So when you look at more respectable and well known sources Time? Personally I think they are well known but very "Liberal" in both ideology and what they are prepared to print as "fact". But many with Left leanings like what they write and afford it a certain a mount of respect.
http://time.com/4182186/sweden-feminists-sexual-assault-refugees/So here is a similar issue in Sweden as was in Rotherham. Police reluctant to pursue Immigrant rape abuse and "Taharrush" for fear of being racist and Feminists "don’t want that threat (of male to female sexual violence) used as a political weapons against refugees". In fact in some extremes, giving out some very strange messages
https://www.barritrad.com/swedish-feminists-please-dont-protect-us-get-raped-immigrants/Even so the incidences of reported rapes notwithstanding all of this is 3 times higher than Zegh-country and twice as high as UK and US.
Seems pretty rapey to me.
Yes Kidnapping IS high in Australia because when Mothers do not get their children back on time (or if they are feeling particularly vindictive) they will call police and report their children as stolen and it gets logged in the records as kidnapping. I have had similar happen to me. It is not anything that reaches the court but it will be recorded as kidnapping.
Still not read the article, then? Oh well.
The figures that actually are available? From BRÅ, mainly. This is a summary: https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html.
Yup here is that link.
63 per 100 000 in Sweden vs
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/rape
The rate of rapes (legacy definition) in 2013 was estimated at 25.2 per 100,000 females
I dunno, it just looks bad for Sweden at this point. they look a lot more rapey. Why do you think that is Odeon?
What IS happening nowdays in your swimming pools? Here is one of our left leaning sites. (They seriously hate trump and adore Hillary)
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/cologne-is-every-day-europes-rape-epidemic/news-story/e2e618e17ad4400b5ed65045e65e141dI hear that they initially tried putting guards in place specifically for policing the problems they were having with Migrant Muslim men sexually abusing and women and children. Is this true or not Odeon, you fucking live there. YOUR community.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/29/groping-guards-patrol-swedish-swimming-pools-to-pr/Now they are trying some good old segregation. Never needed it before but I would be the first to recommend that IF there is a threat then minimising exposure through exclusion (even if some people excluded are not the cause of the problem) is sensible. I may have made this point somewhere else. Did you see that?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/675726/Swimming-pool-segregation-on-the-rise-to-accommodate-Muslim-migrants-in-SwedenI guess you didn't read my links, did you?
Links? yes please send me links. Oh and back your crap up, you are making my points for me.
They are already doing it, and doing it safely. I don't know where you got these ideas from but I can assure you that they are not true. But I guess you'd rather believe in hate groups masquerading as "think tanks".
I had imagined--or rather, hoped--that you'd apply at least some measure of critical thinking to whatever you find on teh interwebz, but apparently not. Bloody hell, Al.
These groups? What groups. I posted a link at one time and you took exception to it because you did not like the organisation. Since then I have posted many links and sometimes simply the search terms to show you an abundance of like-minded articles to accommodate your inability to move along.
I get it. You do not like this David whoever from whatever the link was now. You do not like his point of view and you disagree. You think he is wrong. I may not. I say "may not" because I am not really sure that was a number of posts ago. I get it. You think that the guy is bad and dangerous and part of a think tank. I got it the first time. I got it the second time. That said now you are trying to turn one site into a group of sites. His site is not legion.
Bloody Hell.
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
Going to call you a liar outright and ask that you neither back track and:
No qualifying here
To show your inability to back this I will say I never said this and you can not show this. Now show me where I said anything about Muslim tourists visiting US on a visa and Muslim Americans coming back home from vacations.
Do not water down
You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:
No backtracking and no qualifying. Why did you lie. Are you so unable to back yourself? Is your position so very weak that you have to lie? I am curious.
No qualifying here, because that came in a later post, probably when you realised how stupid the idea was and wanted to backtrack.
The idea is stupid and unrealistic, in addition to being bigoted. Whatever makes you think that they could ever implement something better than is already there? They've already spent years fine-tuning security checks and so far it's not going brilliantly.
And I reiterate: the border controls would not have stopped Orlando. What's your plan?
No, its not going brilliantly. As mentioned previously, many people coming to US are difficult to vet because there are so few verifiable databases and records to check. It means taking people on faith that they are who they say they are. Why would that be? Consider the countries that many of these people are immigrating from has no intact infrastructure and databases due to the impact of war and conflict. Quite often people fleeing conflict have little to verify themselves.
I have not backtracked once and you would be an idiot if you thought so. (I don't think you really do think so. I think you are being goofy).
I think the idea is a sound one in EXACTLY the same way that segregated swimming times is a good idea in Swedish Swimming pools. Why? Because when there was a threat that was not apparent before that risked all female swimmers and the checking system in place (ie the "groping guards") was certainly a step in the right direction and acknowledging the problem but ultimately due to its limitations was ineffective and likely to have too little effect on the overall threat, the next step was isolation until better checking system could be put in place to reduce the threat to a level were the threat and risk were monumentally diminished. That is the adoption of gender segregation.
I always DID think that the idea is a sound one. It is a LOT better than not addressing it in a way that is both different and better than now, and reduces risk and danger. However it IS an idea. A concept. A thought. How could Donald bring this good idea to life? In principle it would be easy enough but here is where the BIG problem I see. If I was a Radicalised Muslim and I knew I was not able to come in as a Muslim, I would say to the immigration officials that I was an Atheist or a Christian. If my country was on a no immigration zone, I would travel to a country that was not on the no immigration zone and come through from there.
So what might have seemed as safe and as thorough as the gender segregated swimming times now looks more like as effective as the groping guards.
You think this is backtracking? Not at all. It always was that case. In comparison to not doing anything or increasing immigration numbers, without having the better safeguards, it is way better.
Doing nothing = Obama
Increasing Muslim immigration = Hillary
Placing a freeze on Muslim immigration until a better method of vetting can be done = Trump
And I reiterate: the border controls would not have stopped Orlando. What's your plan?
I've told you this already. Even spelling out that this is not "my plan". But then you know this already.
You still are not making your point.
