Australian Shooter Magazine

[RRichards3]

In a message dated 6/23/2009 12:03:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bobjaxbch@comcast.net writes:
Australian Shooter Magazine




An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week, which I quote: "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 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US , than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington

[AZSATT]

That's a very interesting stat that I'm sure the All-Barack Channel (ABC) would never reveal.

However, just the title of the post made me curious - as I thought the "Australian Shooter" was a joke in itself... speaking of gun control.

[capo2186]

Can anyone confirm this stat? Because if so I would love to use it during an "anti" confrontation haha

[drt]

If true it makes for a good rebuttal.

[KirkMc]

Originally Posted by capo2186

Can anyone confirm this stat? Because if so I would love to use it during an "anti" confrontation haha

As bad as DC is it is about 5% as dangerous
Google Answers: Firearm Death Rate in Washington, D.C.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by KirkMc

As bad as DC is it is about 5% as dangerous
Google Answers: Firearm Death Rate in Washington, D.C.

The statistical models being used by both presentations leave a LOT to be desired.
You have to remember that most of the deaths in Iraq are caused by roadside bombs, not guns. None of these comparisons are worth anything.

Not only that, but the number for the death rate of Iraq per year using their own number is 604.9 deaths per year, so there is a misplaced decimal and then it's rounded down. Whether this is intentional or not is something I leave up to you to decide.

It's like comparing apples to oranges, then rebutting it by comparing grapes to watermelons.