Posted: 12/13/2009 8:15:49 AM EDT
|
Got this in an email this morning. Searched but couldn't find a dupe.....
Logic 101 An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine, 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, DC. |
|
Quoted: Got this in an email this morning. Searched but couldn't find a dupe..... Logic 101 An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine, 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: Washington should pull out of the US. I guess it makes even more sense now. |
|
Quoted:
Got this in an email this morning. Searched but couldn't find a dupe..... Logic 101 An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine, 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, DC. Um... That is retarded math. If there's 160,000 troops and 2112 get shot, that's significantly higher than 60 per 100,000, closer to 96 per 100,000, or nearly twice as likely to get shot in Iraq than in DC. Don't get me wrong, DC is a complete and utter disaster, and three blocks off the National Mall is akin to a war zone, you're still more likely to get shot in Iraq. That doesn't count getting stabbed, jumped, hit with a hammer, etc in DC, but shooting vs shooting, Iraq is higher. Also you could make the argument that we are comparing a single gun control utopian city to an entire country, and the comparison shouldn't even be under one hundred to one, this is fuzzy math at it's best and probably released by douchebags like Jay Leno or David Letterman to show how stupid Americans are because they'll believe this stuff. Also this is only troops, and American soldiers getting shot, not Limeys or Diggers. (British and Australians They called us Yanks while I was there, I get to call them Limeys and Diggers.) |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Got this in an email this morning. Searched but couldn't find a dupe..... Logic 101 An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine, 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, DC. Um... That is retarded math. If there's 160,000 troops and 2112 get shot, that's significantly higher than 60 per 100,000, closer to 96 per 100,000, or nearly twice as likely to get shot in Iraq than in DC. Don't get me wrong, DC is a complete and utter disaster, and three blocks off the National Mall is akin to a war zone, you're still more likely to get shot in Iraq. That doesn't count getting stabbed, jumped, hit with a hammer, etc in DC, but shooting vs shooting, Iraq is higher. Also you could make the argument that we are comparing a single gun control utopian city to an entire country, and the comparison shouldn't even be under one hundred to one, this is fuzzy math at it's best and probably released by douchebags like Jay Leno or David Letterman to show how stupid Americans are because they'll believe this stuff. (2112/160,000)/22 = .0006 The Iraq figure is per month. But in any case, it's a silly apples-to-oranges comparison. According to Alpha, the DC murder rate is 30.8/100,000 per year. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=washington+dc+murder+rate And comparing the two, Iraq's death rate (all "murders") to DC, quoting a "firearm death" rate, which likely includes suicides, is not honest. |
|
Quoted: For the life of me I can't understand why the government believes that gun laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals....or drugs out of the hands of drug seekers, for that matter. It just doesn't compute. They are just stupid, ignorant, have their head in the sand, or some combination of the above. |
|
Quoted: What about the average length of a deployment?Quoted: Um... That is retarded math. Got this in an email this morning. Searched but couldn't find a dupe..... Logic 101 An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine, 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, DC. If there's 160,000 troops and 2112 get shot, that's significantly higher than 60 per 100,000, closer to 1,800 per 100,000, or twenty two times more likely to get shot in Iraq than in DC. Don't get me wrong, DC is a complete and utter disaster, and three blocks off the National Mall is akin to a war zone, you're still more likely to get shot in Iraq. That doesn't count getting stabbed, jumped, hit with a hammer, etc in DC, but shooting vs shooting, Iraq is higher. Also you could make the argument that we are comparing a single gun control utopian city to an entire country, and the comparison shouldn't even be under one hundred to one, this is fuzzy math at it's best and probably released by douchebags like Jay Leno to show how stupid Americans are because they'll believe this stuff. Are those 160,000 troops at the start of the 22 month period the same 160,000 troops at the end of the 22 month period? What impact does the average length of deployment have on the overall number of troops in the combat zone? Are these results separated by age and gender in order to apply an accurate comparison with the subject group in the combat zone? Why not include all combat zones? Does it make any difference that the rounds that impacted US troops were justifiably fired? Why not compare the US troops in a combat zone to police officers in the named district? Is a Marine more likely or less likely to be shot in the named district or in a combat zone? Retarded or not, the math isn't there. Of course, I'd be hard pressed to find a liberal that would be able to refute it. Consider this: Girls take time. Girls take money. G = T*M Time is money. T = M G = M*M G = M2 Money is the root of evil. M = (root of)E G = [(root of)E][(root of)E] G = E So... girls are evil. So what? It's merely an exercise in some fashion of thinking, which is hard enough for liberals anyways. I read it as a joke, however unscientific it may be.  |
|
Quoted:
Girls take time. Girls take money. G = T*M Time is money. T = M G = M*M G = M2 Money is the root of evil. M = (root of)E G = [(root of)E][(root of)E] G = E So... girls are evil. So what? It's merely an exercise in some fashion of thinking, which is hard enough for liberals anyways. I read it as a joke, however unscientific it may be.
Now a friend of mine once had quite the comparison. It was: 90% of women are mean, conniving, and just plain evil. The other ten percent is fat. |
|
Quoted: That's funny. The horrifying part of that is that 50% of women are fat and 50% are thin. You'll never know when you'll get a mean, conniving, evil... fat 40%er. My ex is fatter every time I see her in an official circumstance.Quoted: Now a friend of mine once had quite the comparison. It was: 90% of women are mean, conniving, and just plain evil. The other ten percent is fat. Girls take time. Girls take money. G = T*M Time is money. T = M G = M*M G = M2 Money is the root of evil. M = (root of)E G = [(root of)E][(root of)E] G = E So... girls are evil. So what? It's merely an exercise in some fashion of thinking, which is hard enough for liberals anyways. I read it as a joke, however unscientific it may be.  (Before the rest of you GDers get all uppity, I got nothing against fatties. If I could pick a fatty and be sure she wasn't evil, mean, conniving, etc... I would). |