Something to ponder

K

kayleesgrandma

New member
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 100,000 soldiers.The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6
per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about
25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital, 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.
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
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 100,000 soldiers.The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6
per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about
25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital, 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.
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
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 100,000 soldiers.The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6
per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about
25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital, 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.
 
A

Allie

New member
Small details. I thought something about this sounded wrong, so I looked it up.

The death rate for firearms in Washington, DC is 31.2, not 80.6. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000">Stats for firearm death rate</a>

According to globalsecurity.org, there's 152,000 troops in Iraq as of Nov 2006.

And according to the Brookings institute, there's been 2,370 hostile fire deaths in Iraq from the start of the war to December 2006. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index20061221.pdf">The Brookings Iraq index</a> So if that's over 46-odd months, that's 612 deaths a year, so the death rate would be 402.6 per 100,000. So, working out washington DC's death rate for the same time, it would be 119.6. 119.6 is not bigger than 402.6.

I know where I got my statistics from, sources that would fly in a paper. Where did they get theirs from?
 
A

Allie

New member
Small details. I thought something about this sounded wrong, so I looked it up.

The death rate for firearms in Washington, DC is 31.2, not 80.6. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000">Stats for firearm death rate</a>

According to globalsecurity.org, there's 152,000 troops in Iraq as of Nov 2006.

And according to the Brookings institute, there's been 2,370 hostile fire deaths in Iraq from the start of the war to December 2006. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index20061221.pdf">The Brookings Iraq index</a> So if that's over 46-odd months, that's 612 deaths a year, so the death rate would be 402.6 per 100,000. So, working out washington DC's death rate for the same time, it would be 119.6. 119.6 is not bigger than 402.6.

I know where I got my statistics from, sources that would fly in a paper. Where did they get theirs from?
 
A

Allie

New member
Small details. I thought something about this sounded wrong, so I looked it up.

The death rate for firearms in Washington, DC is 31.2, not 80.6. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000">Stats for firearm death rate</a>

According to globalsecurity.org, there's 152,000 troops in Iraq as of Nov 2006.

And according to the Brookings institute, there's been 2,370 hostile fire deaths in Iraq from the start of the war to December 2006. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index20061221.pdf">The Brookings Iraq index</a> So if that's over 46-odd months, that's 612 deaths a year, so the death rate would be 402.6 per 100,000. So, working out washington DC's death rate for the same time, it would be 119.6. 119.6 is not bigger than 402.6.

I know where I got my statistics from, sources that would fly in a paper. Where did they get theirs from?
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Thank you for pointing this out Allie--as I have told you before, I hate math. I should have checked the figures. . . I just googled this up thanks to you Allie, as this was an email sent to me by a close friend who was a Viet Nam war vet. It appears that this is an email that has circulated from 2005.
Irregardless of the accuracy of the figures, the <b>gist</b> of the email is that people are trying to use casualty figures as a reason to get out of Iraq. I'm certainly glad this was not used to get us to leave World War II.
I found this reply in reference to the error of the email: "the stats are a bit out of proportion as is easy to do (mistakenly or otherwise) with statistics, coupled with what seems to be a few calculation errors. I would very much welcome the simple statistic of how many attacks on US and it's outposts (other than in Iraq) like embassies and ships and even here (World Trade center twice) happened in the 5 or so years prior to Afghanistan & Iraq and how many since? Odd how no one is counting that simple unmanipuative number?"
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Thank you for pointing this out Allie--as I have told you before, I hate math. I should have checked the figures. . . I just googled this up thanks to you Allie, as this was an email sent to me by a close friend who was a Viet Nam war vet. It appears that this is an email that has circulated from 2005.
Irregardless of the accuracy of the figures, the <b>gist</b> of the email is that people are trying to use casualty figures as a reason to get out of Iraq. I'm certainly glad this was not used to get us to leave World War II.
I found this reply in reference to the error of the email: "the stats are a bit out of proportion as is easy to do (mistakenly or otherwise) with statistics, coupled with what seems to be a few calculation errors. I would very much welcome the simple statistic of how many attacks on US and it's outposts (other than in Iraq) like embassies and ships and even here (World Trade center twice) happened in the 5 or so years prior to Afghanistan & Iraq and how many since? Odd how no one is counting that simple unmanipuative number?"
 
K

kayleesgrandma

New member
Thank you for pointing this out Allie--as I have told you before, I hate math. I should have checked the figures. . . I just googled this up thanks to you Allie, as this was an email sent to me by a close friend who was a Viet Nam war vet. It appears that this is an email that has circulated from 2005.
Irregardless of the accuracy of the figures, the <b>gist</b> of the email is that people are trying to use casualty figures as a reason to get out of Iraq. I'm certainly glad this was not used to get us to leave World War II.
I found this reply in reference to the error of the email: "the stats are a bit out of proportion as is easy to do (mistakenly or otherwise) with statistics, coupled with what seems to be a few calculation errors. I would very much welcome the simple statistic of how many attacks on US and it's outposts (other than in Iraq) like embassies and ships and even here (World Trade center twice) happened in the 5 or so years prior to Afghanistan & Iraq and how many since? Odd how no one is counting that simple unmanipuative number?"
 
D

dyza

New member
And remember thats its not all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are a few Brits in there also, A good friend of mine is a Para in Afghanistan..Everytime the news says there is another British soldier killed in Afghanistan, my heart kind of flutters for a second.
 
D

dyza

New member
And remember thats its not all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are a few Brits in there also, A good friend of mine is a Para in Afghanistan..Everytime the news says there is another British soldier killed in Afghanistan, my heart kind of flutters for a second.
 
D

dyza

New member
And remember thats its not all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are a few Brits in there also, A good friend of mine is a Para in Afghanistan..Everytime the news says there is another British soldier killed in Afghanistan, my heart kind of flutters for a second.
 
E

Emily65Roses

New member
Using WWII is a bad comparison for this war. I've never heard anyone dispute our need to be involved in that war (I'm sure it has happened, but it's I should think it's fairly rare). There are *plenty* of people now that think we had no right to invade Iraq, let alone still be there years later.
 
E

Emily65Roses

New member
Using WWII is a bad comparison for this war. I've never heard anyone dispute our need to be involved in that war (I'm sure it has happened, but it's I should think it's fairly rare). There are *plenty* of people now that think we had no right to invade Iraq, let alone still be there years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top