One of the ROTC teachers at my school gave me this...I don't know the source, but the numbers seem accurate...
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 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington D.C., (among other cities) is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq. Conclusion:
We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.
Posts
12 comments:
I put up a post in August that used DoD statistics concerning military-in-peacetime casualty numbers over a couple of decades. It is pretty eye opening. The stats in your post back it up as well.
What useless drivel! I suggest you remove the word "logic" from the title, because there is none in this post nor any relevance to current events.
Scorpion says---
I have never seen a competent person waste time commenting on an item that is actually useless drivel.The number of gun related deaths in Washington D.C.is no less relevant than gun deaths of Americans anywhere else.Gun deaths in American cities is a daily current event.It just appears that the logic of the uninformed whiners continues to be jumbled,and that will never change for the"U.W.'s"(uninformed whiners)
I'm pitching a no hitter against every liberal who dared to go toe to toe with me. All they do is ignore the stone cold facts laid out before them, then accuse you of something else. When that fails, they whip out the insult cheat sheet.
Facts will shut them up every time. Just ask Wino, Drew and Jim.
Jim,
'According to My Sources' your sources haven't given you anything since early September. No new information since then? Or is the old Liberal playbook from the '60's still your basic source?
The only field humanzee has beaten me on, is the one in his own mind. He uses a system of unorganized facts surrounded by gibberish or propaganda (the same thing), combined with name-calling, to make the horses quit running in his head. When the smoke dissipates, and the dust settles it just leaves the manure lying on the ground, and thats the way he likes it.
Now, what needs to be done here is to answer game's question. Can we draw any logical conclusion from the data put forth? The answer is hazy. That may be the number of deaths, but its only one single statistic. Nothing can be drawn with finding a lot more.
if you include ALL firearms deaths in bagdad as opposed as DC I think you may find a different result. Our troops, thank God, are also protected to an extent with armour and other military gear. Most people in DC are not....where would you prefer to walk down the street....Jim is right...useless drivel.
Steve, I've been too busy here enlightening the uninformed. :-) But I'll get to my own blog soon.
According to liberal logic, we should pull out of California.
Statistics don't usually favor the left.
OK, nobody was really able to pick up where I left. What the scenario doesnt account for, is people maimed, blinded, burned, kidnapped, assaulted, or simply wounded. Also, that number has to account for every nation in Iraq, not just ours. This is why the Bushies focus on the death number, and that number alone. If you account for ALL the violence to all the countries, including the Iraqis, I dont think its going to pan out too well for them.
seems logical to me.
The road to the airport in Baghdad is a killing zone (just ask the troops) -- the road to the airport in Wash. D.C. is not.
If you were a soldier, where would you rather be stationed in D.C. or somewhere in Iraq?
War is Over (if you want it)!
Post a Comment