According to the New York Times, Iraq has an annualized firearm death rate of 36.9 per 100,000 people. America has an annualized firearm death rate of 10.1 per 100,000. Washington DC has an annualized firearm death rate of 31.2 deaths per 100,000. Incidentally, US military deaths in the Iraq war have been 2,857. Over a million and a half troops have served in Iraq in that period. Thats 190.5 deaths per 100,000 troops.
I am sure you have a point here; I am just not sure what it is. YOU MEAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY DIE IN WAR??? GEEZ! STOP THE PRESSES! Of course people die in war, and they generally do it at a much higher rate than they do at home. Since the war in Iraq started less than 3,000 American lives have been lost. That is an incredibly low death rate for a war. During WWII more than that died on D-Day. On a bad day the U.S. might suffer 8 casualties (killed and wounded) in Iraq. In WWII we suffered an average of 900 casualties a day. The manner in which the press plays up the killed and wounded, stating so many died today and that makes so many deaths since the war started makes it sound worse than it is. Funny thing is, they never state how many insurgents died in the fighting. It seems they are only interested in showing one side of the story - the negative side.
The point (that you missed) is that Blackjack's numbers are flawed. The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with that. Your numbers are flawed, too. The US military averages 17 wounded and 2 killed every day. That's double the casualties that you assume. LINK The US military doesn't give out those statistics is the reason. "We don't do body counts" -- General Tommy Franks. LINK Iraqi Civilian deaths have been recorded and the insurgent casualties are buried in there somewhere. LINK
Read up a few posts to Frogleg's post. The dude was trying to say Iraq was safer than DC. I pointed out the poor use of logic and red pointed out the poor logic was combined with bad stats. You missed the context of the arguement.
Of course that's all he is interested in showing because he is against the way. You and I are only interested in showing the positive side because we support the war. People only show the sides that support them, they aren't going to go out of their way to prove their "opponents" point.
First, it was a quote. Second, your logic is flawed. Dissimilar popluations are compared all the time. Third, Red only pointed out bad stats, not poor logic. And he may be right.
And people draw poor conclusions from them all the time. Are you going to take your family on an Iraqi vacation anytime soon?
