ONE place with ONE handgranade is what hit the news so hard. That is extremely serious in itself, but please be rational in this and look at it with a perspective of reason. People love to use terms as "war" because it somehow make matters seem way worse than they are.

Does Sweden have big issues at the moment with gangs that clash at times? Yes, and that must be handled with in a harsh way (no, not the military, that is just idiotic and will spur even more violence).

If you ever want to look at the world through sober eyes, read the boring statistics of bra.se instead of reading what gossip newspaper write in order to get the "craziest" headline. 

Are the Carabinieri actually army soldiers or is it that the Carabinieri are organized as an army corps? In Spain, the Guardia Civil is organized as an army, but they are policemen/women, not soldiers.

Such places don't exist anywhere on the globe, except perhaps straight up warzones.

I've been through some of the shadier parts of Harlem and everything went fine, but let's not pretend that by going through there I did not accept an elevated risk of crime, and if I were to continually navigate that part of town my likelihood of being a victim would be much higher than if I chose to be in Chelsea.

Here's the problem, though. You used a definition of no-go zone which is not the definition.

"A "no-go area" (or "no-go zone") is an area that has a reputation for violence and crime which makes people frightened to go there" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area

It does not mean that going into the area warrants immediate attack, that's you putting your own definition onto the word.

Except that is not how it is portraid to the public and why it sparked such a controversy. 

I don't think it was just one grenade attack, I'm pretty sure there have been several cases of it. I understand not statistically significant, but you did capitalize "ONE".

Gang war is the term used to despite "gangs that clash at times". The word "war" may overstimulate the senses, and "clash at times" is certainly also a way of trying to dull response to it.

I am well aware of the extremely low crime rates in general Sweden, as is almost anybody that talks about "no go zones" in the country. Maybe you fail to understand that that is why it's such an interesting phenomena to people. A country, that historically and generally, is exceptionally safe is having a serious and real problem in a concentrated area that seems to be deteriorating rapidly. And it's not just murders, but also a rapid increase in sexual harassment and other crimes.

I understand that Malmo is only 3.8 murders per 100k. But it was up over 20% YoY. You have the "everything is a-okay" folks telling us that it's very low, shouldn't worry, look over there to Chicago, anybody who thinks there's a problem should sober up and shut up. Unfortunately, these are the same folks which have been caught in a number of cases suppressing major news stories that weren't favourable, and so the trust in those folks are at an all time low.

Data across the board shows that crime is low, but concentrated, and rising fast.

But why would anyone be frightened to go to a certain area? Unless it's in the middle of the night, no one should be afraid to go anywhere, since the chances of something bad happening to you are still very small.

In certain areas in Latin America and Africa, there's a decent chance you'll get attacked. I don't think that such places exist in Europe.

I get that you're showing Fox News. But they are the only mainstream news provider (I guess probably Breitbart too) who portrayed it in that way, and just about every other mainstream news provider attacked them for it.

You have, on the one side, Fox News misrepresenting what a no-go zone is, and on the other, people telling you there's no such thing. Both sides are incorrect.

The general public doesn't get their news from Fox. 0.4% of the US population watches Fox News.

Malmö has 318 thousand inhabitants. That means that there are about 12 murders a year. So if the murder rate is 20% up, that just means there are 2 more guys killed (probably by coincidence).

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/WP0KG/the-crime-situation-in-sweden-compared-to-the-us-in-4-charts

'Total crimes against life and health' have stayed pretty much the same in Sweden for the past few years.

My mistake, the murder rate across Sweden went up 20% YoY http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6390644 . This would obviously be concentrated into regions.

https://www.bra.se/brott-och-statistik/statistiska-undersokningar/nationella-trygghetsundersokningen.html shows that Swedish people have been increasingly concerned about crime since 2014. And the link off the page says that it's up again for 2017.

I think it is very important to look at those numbers from an historic point of view. Yes, it is a real problem that we saw this amount of violence last year and it is a great thing that it is finally discussed. But if we look at the last ten years and how the lethal violence have shifted: https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/murder-and-manslaughter.html

2007: 111 cases of leathal violence

2008: A reduction by 26% in lethal violence from 2007

2009: An increase by 13% from 2008 in lethal violence from 2008

2012: We only saw 68 cases of lethal violence

2013: An increase by 28% in lethal violence from 2012

2015: The highest level in the last ten years, but comparable to 2007 with 112 cases.

When we are dealing with such small numbers, large variations will occur. That does not mean that we shouldn´t take these issues seriously, but we always need to balance what we see in the news with reality.