Comparing Washinton DC to Irak

[Maromero]

I recieved this e-mail. Thought to share with the forum, if only as a joke.


"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.


The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.

That means you are about 25 percent more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., than you are in Iraq."


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

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Although I like this I think if you looked at the casualty rate you would be forced to another conclusion.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

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

I'm not sure I'm buying the "facts" but I do like the punchline.

 

[speedycat]

I'm amazed this thread hasn't been locked yet.

 

[ScottRiqui]

I think the numbers are out-of-whack as well.

Going back 22 months in Iraq (June 2008 & forward), total U.S. military deaths are 273, not 2112. But we also don't have 160,000 troops in Iraq anymore - it's actually below 100,000 now.

But even if troop strength had been steady at 160,000 for the past two years, 273 deaths in two years works out to about 85 deaths per 100,000 per year.

But on the other hand, the total homicide rate for the past two years combined in D.C. is only about 45 per 100,000, not anywhere close to 80.6.

In all, it appears that the numbers were pulled out of someone's butt, and I don't know that a meaningful comparison between the two areas is possible anyway.

 

[Al Norris]

Pulled out of someones southern hemisphere ... Indeed.

Oh, and IBTL