Subject: USA

[Firestar]

Subject: USA


If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months,
and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 10,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 10,000 for the same period.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.



Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington immediately.

 

[rwise]

Re: Subject: USA

d

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Subject: USA

Maybe they have better training in D.C. :;

 

[Gone]

Re: Subject: USA

Actually the 2,112 number is not all firearm deaths. It's closer to half of that. That makes your conclusion even more relevant.
The soldiers had firearms of their own to defend themselves with. If the DC citizens were allowed to have firearms of their own for personal protection, the firearm death rate would be much lower there too, as happens everywhere in the US where this is enacted!

CD

 

[Pony]

Re: Subject: USA

I agree with Very Crusty Dude.........well said.

 

[CJY]

Re: Subject: USA

Very flawed math going on here.

A ratio of 2112 soldier deaths per 160,000 soldiers does not amount to 60 deaths per 10,000 soldiers. If you redo the math, it equates to 132 soldier deaths per 10,000 soldiers.

Simply divide 2112 by 16. This gives you a death rate per 10,000 soldiers.

So firestar, if you wish to pull out of DC immediately because of their 80.6 deaths per 10,000 civilians, you must also agree with a pull out in Iraq where the death rate is 132 per 10,000. The death rate in Iraq is 63% higher than DC. I knew you would eventually see the light.


Conclusion: some people place a higher priority on being a smart a$$ before following simple logic.

 

[oddjob]

Re: Subject: USA

Bad Firestar ...bad:'(8)

 

[Pony]

Re: Subject: USA

Is this math flawed.........Yes.
Does that change my view on gun control.........No.

I'm guessing.........without doing any research.....that if you did subtract the non-firearm deaths out of the 2,112, then you'd probably be somewhere near that 60 mark.

 

[CJY]

Re: Subject: USA

Pony,

I was not trying to change your view on gun control. I was simply disputing firestar's conclusion. He used flawed math in a poor attempt to try and show it is safer in Iraq than DC.

If the numbers in Iraq are misleading because not all soldiers have died by gunfire, I understand. I did not provide the numbers used in the original post though. I used what was provided.

 

[QC]

Re: Subject: USA

I was not trying to change your view on gun control. I was simply disputing firestar's conclusion. He used flawed math in a poor attempt to try and show it is safer in Iraq than DC

CJY,

You must admit that it is pretty amazing that a job that none of us would be comfortable doing, a job that has the entire Democrat party (except Hero Joe Lieberman) demanding that we withdraw, a job that gets all liberals on this board screaming that our soldiers need to be brought home, is even close to being as safe as living anywhere in the US.

It is similar to worrying about Bird Flu and then jumping in a car to drive to work. Flippin' unbelievable. These types of stats should be included in any news story concerning American Military deaths, and it is yet another indication of the liberal bias of our media that they aren't. I have actually heard these stats before . . . Where? Conservative talk radio. Why don't I get this from Katie Couric (sp)?

 

[treedancer]

Re: Subject: USA

Quote firestar.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 10,000 for the same period.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.


I wonder how the citizens of the nations capitol would get buy with these numbers, there not all deaths but if you have some of you limbs blown of with a bomb, could make it a bit inconvenient.


1280 death and causalities per month since the invasion began on March 20 2003.


Here is the break down.


Iraqi Deaths
30,000 - given by G. W. Bush in a public speech on December 12, 2005.

Im not even adding this little tid bit.

100,000 excess deaths - estimated in the September 2004 Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

U.S. armed forces

2,715 total deaths, 20,468 combat wounded (9,286 evacuated), plus an unknown number of non-combat injuries.

Armed forces of other coalition countries

236 (118 British, 32 Italian, 18 Ukrainian, 17 Polish, 13 Bulgarian, 11 Spanish, 5 Danes, 4 Salvadorans, 3 Slovaks, 2 Australians, 2 Dutch, 2 Estonians, 2 Romanians, 2 Thai, 1 Fijian, 1 Hungarian, 1 Kazakh, 1 Latvian.


Iraq Coalition Casualties: Contractors=353

 

[Firestar]

Re: Subject: USA

Very flawed math going on here.

A ratio of 2112 soldier deaths per 160,000 soldiers does not amount to 60 deaths per 10,000 soldiers. If you redo the math, it equates to 132 soldier deaths per 10,000 soldiers.

Simply divide 2112 by 16. This gives you a death rate per 10,000 soldiers.

So firestar, if you wish to pull out of DC immediately because of their 80.6 deaths per 10,000 civilians, you must also agree with a pull out in Iraq where the death rate is 132 per 10,000. The death rate in Iraq is 63% higher than DC. I knew you would eventually see the light.


Conclusion: some people place a higher priority on being a smart a$$ before following simple logic.

I read it copied it pasted it and
now realized I should have checked it.

No smart azz intended smart azz.

 

[bassboy1]

Re: Subject: USA

Now the point here is that it is still to dangerous in DC. The 80.6 is still more than half the amount dying in a WAR! Something ain't right here.

 

[CJY]

Re: Subject: USA

QC,

I was not attempting to argue any other point except there are some flaws in the math here. These flaws appear to support conservative rhetoric. So, you can complain about the liberal media all you like, but I bet the liberal media did not put these numbers together.
Hmmmm, which means........well, you figure it out.

Yea, you probably would not hear Katie mention these numbers. Even the libs can do enough math to figure out they are screwed up. This is just an example of conservatives believing their own BS so much, they think all others will buy it too.

 

[CJY]

Re: Subject: USA

Firestar,

you said:

"I read it copied it pasted it and
now realized I should have checked it."



I thought I mentioned on another thread that it is very dangerous to follow blindly. Hey......do you work for W?

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Subject: USA

I wonder how many of those DC gunshots were Drug related?
the death rate in Iraq has nothing to do with pulling out and everything to do with the poor planning and blind faith bullying of some politicians that would not tell the emporor he had no clothes.
all were warned in early 03 that if the borders of Iraq were not secured even before bagdad fell the results would be terrible.
seems the guys that got sacked were right.
however 350,000 plus troops was not politically palatable.
so now we have what we have.
in feb of 03 there had never been an IED or suicide bombing in Iraq and no Al-queda.
now about every terror group known to the world has operatives there and to top it off the religious leaders are whiping up the various kurds,sunni,shieta and a couple other lesser known sects to fight each other.
all because of a simple failure to positivly secure the borders of Iraq.
we taking bad stuff in afghanistan over the same fatal planning for border security.
giving the pakistani's control of the afghan/pakistan border is like giving lard,sterno and a messs kit to the fox and tasking the fox with henhouse gaurd duty.
it worked about as well too.
while I realize the pakistani's are "allies" I also realize they know that sooner or later the US will leave and at the end of the day they still have to live with all the various tribes,religions and clerics. they wont cut off thier noses for G W.
which is why we should have had an outpost 50 ft inside the border every 500 yards or so and shot anyone in the zone not going through an autherized check point.
however the troop numbers to do that are again politically unpalatable.

 

[CJY]

Re: Subject: USA

QC,

you said;

"a job that gets all liberals on this board screaming that our soldiers need to be brought home"

I believe some republicans in congress are beginning to scream as well, are they not?

 

[QC]

Re: Subject: USA

CJY,

I was reacting to your corrected math, which if correct is still extremely bizarre. You don't find the corrected numbers troubling? Whether they are to point out the relative safety of our troops as compared to living in DC, or if they are used to show that gun control means nothing other than fewer armed good citizens, or if you are trying to argue that Washington DC is one flipped up city, it doesn't matter. Those statistics are troubling, and should be reported by ALL media. That was my point . . . Not sure what conservative BS you are referring to.

 

[Firestar]

Re: Subject: USA

Firestar,

you said:

"I read it copied it pasted it and
now realized I should have checked it."





I thought I mentioned on another thread that it is very dangerous to follow blindly. Hey......do you work for W?

Gloat while you can. Nice character trait you have there.

 

[CJY]

Re: Subject: USA

Firestar,

ddd

QC,

I will tell you what I find troubling. I find it troubling that we have a President trying to clean up an entire country while he cannot clean up the Capital city of the USA.

My guess, these deaths in DC are not happening in the wealthy parts of the city. I bet if they were we would be hearing about it. Not only would we be hearing about it, something would be getting done as well. And I agree, all media should be nailing this, but let's face it, how many care if 6 prostitutes, pimps and drug dealers were killed yesterday? How many would actually pay money to read this?