Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Since when does the "logic of the left" view deaths by roadside bombs and accidents as irrelevant?
That's funny. No where in that article do I see the word "irrelevant" or see anyplace where the author does anything but explain how those deaths occured.
This is just a tongue-in-cheek piece. Take it at face value.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
The implication is that you're safer in Iraq than DC. For that to be true, the rest of the deaths would have to be irrelevant.
Given all the guff about slanted articles around here, what is its face-value, exactly? I just think it trivializes the hostile fire deaths in order to take a shot at the left - and it's not even correct. The DC police department says that there were 198 homicides in 2004. The census lists the population at about 572,000. That's 34.6 per 100,000, not 80.6, and it's all homicides, not just ones from guns.
Last edited by chickenhead; February 16th, 2005 at 01:07 PM.
fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in
Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths has been due to explosives or
accidents.
What does this mean? If you consider that there has been an average of
160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months, that gives a
firearm death rate of 55 per 100,000.
The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more
likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some
of the strictest gun control laws in the nation than you are in Iraq.
The conclusion? Under the logic of the left, we should immediately
pull out of WASHINGTON.
40, I wish you would do your research before posting this nonsense.
According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report the Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate in D.C. last year (2004) was 44.2 per 100,000. That includes all murders, drunk driving, any type of crime resulting in the death of another excluding accidental, not just shootings.
Your post leaves out bombings which is nearly a daily occurance over there.
Also, this pathetic claim leaves out the most obvious, if D.C. had only 160,000 citizens the numbers would not be the same, they would be lower.
Anyone who buys into this crap should move their families over to Iraq, it's safer!
Given all the guff about slanted articles around here, what is its face-value, exactly? I just think it trivializes the hostile fire deaths in order to take a shot at the left - and it's not even correct. The DC police department says that there were 198 homicides in 2004. The census lists the population at about 572,000. That's 34.6 per 100,000, not 80.6, and it's all homicides, not just ones from guns.
So 40 year was using false data to make a spurious assumption?
The implication is that you're safer in Iraq than DC. For that to be true, the rest of the deaths would have to be irrelevant.
Given all the guff about slanted articles around here, what is its face-value, exactly? I just think it trivializes the hostile fire deaths in order to take a shot at the left - and it's not even correct. The DC police department says that there were 198 homicides in 2004. The census lists the population at about 572,000. That's 34.6 per 100,000, not 80.6, and it's all homicides, not just ones from guns.
Good job doing some research.
But they said it was the handgun death ratio. What ever that is. I am not so sure you are comparing the same thing.
Sounds like it would be a ratio of firearm deaths to all deaths. Of course, I am not really sure that even qualifies as a real statistic.
You are right about this nugget of information trivializing combat deaths and the threat of bombs to our soldiers to make a political point however.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
It makes this claim and leaves out bombings from its statistics, right?
Not only are the numbers made up, it tries to slant them to make this crazy claim.
I have seen this crap on a few very right slanted websites and couldn't believe anyone would actually buy into it, guess I was wrong.
Besides all that, it is an insult to any soldier or American civilian (another of many groups convieniently left out) over there in an attempt to trivialize the dangers and personally I wish the authors who come up with this crap were forced to go make their residence in Iraq.
Recently, the Iraqi health ministry released data from six months of hospital records. As reported by the BBC, the numbers showed that from July 1, 2004 to Jan. 1, 2005:
* 3,274 people were killed and 12, 657 injured in violence related to the war
* 2,041 died as the result of military action (including insurgents, and Iraqi security forces)
* 1,233 were killed after "terrorist" incidents
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Unbelievable. What is it about the make-up of a liberal that they can't take anything at face value.
IT'S A JOKE
It's meant to be funny. Who cares about the content? Look at the punch line. Have any of you ever heard the term "exaggeration"? That's what a comedian like Jay Leno does. Say something preposterous and people will laugh.
You guys have gotten so defensive, you snap a guys' head off for even the most trivial thing. Life is short. Quit being so damned analytical. A man who laughs and enjoys life lives a lot longer.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
