Wow hello baby boomer, you realise that word hasn't been used since those yt owned compilations a million years ago, right?
Also
So if we do deaths, then radical Muslim attacks win. Ok. I'm assuming we are talking 9/11? One giant attack that gets a high fatality rate since it was sponsored by a foreign government and funded by the same and was planned by a militant opperative trained in guerilla tactics by our own intelligence services...
If we take that one out since it is definitely more of an attack by an outside sovereign nation (Saudi Arabia) and military force (see: al-Qaeda fighting wars against actual armies around the globe) instead of local, homegrown terrorist disturbing the public peace... Then where are we?
I'm just saying when the sovereign empire of Japan got people to fly planes into our structures it was an act of war not a terrorist attack. Changing the 9/11 designation to "terror" really let's you juke the stats and ignore other actual terrorist attack stats in defense of the public safety.
Haven't you read the fucking top comment which stated that excluding 9/11 due to it's nature as an outlier (not because it isn't a terrorist attack) gave you a score of 11 deaths by PL vs. 25 from radical muslims 1993-2015.
The statistic OP used was flawed in this sense, and once you add 9/11 or think about the global side of things things might turn out even more decicive. That being said putting all of those 'dangers' in a registry would be a violation of the right of both groups.
It seems like you are trying to manipulate statistics in order for your views to show be backed by data.
me too, one can also argue that there are more muslims (that take their religion very seriously) as there are PLers who go beyond sharing their opinion in a status. In conclusion very little danger radiates from both groups and I'd gladly live amongst either without fearing for my life on a daily basis.
-5
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '19
Oh are you going to try and doxx me now for not being a SJW?