Your chance of being shot in Iraq is probably not as high as it would seem. Most of our killed and wounded are the victims of explosions.
Howard

> > Here's some interesting info to ponder:
> >
> > -Begin Quote-
> > There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers. The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.
> > Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington
> > -End Quote-
> >
> > I found this in someone's blog and copied it. My apologies for any misspellings and/or inaccurate statistics. Nevertheless, I thought it was funny.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I checked up on some of this. The "80.6 per 100,000" for Washington, D.C. was actually the rate in 1991, the peak year. The numbers are 44.7 per 100,000 for 2003; 35.8 per 100,000 for 2004; 35.4 per 100,000 for 2005. Also, these are homicide rates, which are a bit over the firearm death rates because it includes stabbings, etc.
>
> So, right from the start, it's based on a blatant lie (I realize this has nothing to do with Michael -- I'm addressing whoever originally wrote it). Also, the choice of "firearm death rate" over "homicide" is telling. Perhaps that further helps unbalance the scales. Not to mention that, even disregarding the bad statistics, it should read "...more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq, *if you are an American*." Would we really base the decision to pull out just on how many of *us* are dying?