That would be taking the premise that Syrian refugees are dangerous at face value and examining it for effect.
Just how dangerous is the question, and what kind of danger is acceptable, for what end?
Guns are more dangerous statistically and are tolerated so that people have the liberty to own assault rifles, yet the same people who accept this idea will balk at the miniscule (and at this point abstract) threat posed by Syrian refugees when the idea there is to rescue people from terror and threats to their life and livelihood.
I think that dichotomy is quite ironically satisfying and really puts peoples priority's right out there for all to see.
Further, If you think my point is distracting you aren't helping by engaging me on it.