If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 Troops in the
Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and A total of 2110
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means
you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol
(which has some of the most strict gun control laws in the nation), than you
are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.

 

You do make a good point, however I think its a bit flawed...

With all due respect, every single person lost in Iraq hurts a great deal and affects our society as in a great loss, whereas any or all persons lost in Washington D.C. really has no affect on our society except to make more room for other brain dead individuals...

Therefore my conclusion is quickly move in as many brain dead individuals into Washington D.C. and let the games begin...

 

Excellent post^^^^^^^^

 

that's already happened...those affected are usually referred to as Congressmen, Senators, and REMFS.

 

When I read these I try to verify rather than take it on faith if possible.

Maybe I'm not figuring something right.
I will take for granted there are 160,000 troops in theater.
I will take for granted the 22 months.
And I will take for granted there have been 2110 casualties.

For DC I found the population to be over 550,000 here:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

And for DC homicides I found this:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1...dcNav,%7C,.asp
2173 homicides between 1997 and today.

Wouldn't we have to have been in Iraq since 1997 to even tie the DC homicide rate?

Without even taking into consideration that DC has over three times the population ?

Making Iraq three times more dangerous than DC for the last eight years?

Or that there were 385 homicides in DC in the last 22 months against the 2110 lives in Iraq and factoring the three times population dropping the 385 to 128?

This would lead me to believe that the 128 to 2110 makes Iraq twenty times more dangerous than DC on a level playing field.

Is the problem that I'm only looking at homicides in DC (firearm or not)?

Helping me with these numbers.
I don't want to believe that this was Right Wing or NRA propaganda.

 

I guess Raoul is right???


How ever to be fair,

You need to compare that to a city with a closer population to that of Iraq.


Like say New York.



Let me put things in perspective......

New Orleans is the Murder capitol of the nation. Its 10 time higher then the national average.

The city has 475,000 people { pre-Katrina } and had 274 murders {in 2002}

So using the numbers above, your about 15 times more likely to get killed as a trooper in Iraq then you are to get murdered as a civilian in the worst US city.

 

I will have to agree comparing a warzone to a US city with some semblence of law and order is absurd.

A more fair coparison would be to compare a past warzone with Iraq. Vietnam was 500,000ish in theater and in 1968 14,500 soldiers KIA. In Iraq terms that would be over 4800 guys killed in a year. There would be about 10,000 KIA by this time.
http://www.ktroop.com/HonorRoll/casualty.pdf

I'm sure WWII and Korea figures were a whole bunch higher than Vietnam, unless you were looking at post WWII (3-5years after) which I believe were similar to Iraq numbers, but I don't have a source for that.