Fact?

Jimbuna · 04-17-09, 03:03 PM

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: Maybe its time the U.S. pull out of Washington?

Sailor Steve · 04-17-09, 03:05 PM

You just want to get it back, you sneaky bugga!

Digital_Trucker · 04-17-09, 03:15 PM

Personally, I think we should just pick DC up and move it about 200 miles due East of its current location. That would be about the right spot for it.

Jimbuna · 04-17-09, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You just want to get it back, you sneaky bugga!

We can't afford London nevermind Washington

fatty · 04-17-09, 03:29 PM

Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

It's actually 1,320 deaths per 100,000.

Dowly · 04-17-09, 03:51 PM

I'm too drunk to understand that thing, but I vote yay!

August · 04-17-09, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatty

Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

Because the first number is a total and the 2nd number is an average.

Aramike · 04-17-09, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatty

Fiction!

How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000?

It's actually 1,320 deaths per 100,000.

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "monthly average", right?

Math is great.

fatty · 04-17-09, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "monthly average", right?

Math is great.

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.

Aramike · 04-17-09, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatty

*Sigh*

You did see the phrase "a total of," right?

Reading comprehension is even better.

Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.

fatty · 04-17-09, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Well, you should really learn to comprehend what YOU are reading then. Everyone else seems to be able to get the math...

You see, one uses "totals" to create "averages". And the word "monthly" would appear to be the base for the averages, more specifically, the 22 month period. Even though, to be fair the equation is missing some information - or perhaps is comparing a monthy rate to an annual rate.

Got it?

Good.

So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification.

Quote:

Because the first number is a total and the 2nd number is an average.

Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.

Digital_Trucker · 04-17-09, 05:11 PM

2,112 deaths/ 22 months = 96 deaths per month
96 deaths per month / 160,000 average monthly troop level = 60 in 100,000 probability of death in a one month period

Have no idea where the DC number came from, but the Iraq number is correct

Aramike · 04-17-09, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatty

So of course there were 2,112 coalition deaths every month in Iraq, for a total of 46,464 deaths in the 22 month span, which then magically equates to 60 deaths per 100,000 people. That makes perfect sense, thank you for your clarification.

Yes of course you are right August. There are 2,112 deaths through the 160,000-strong in Iraq in the 22 month span. The problem, as Aramike notes, is you derive averages from totals. 2112/160000 just doesn't turn into 60/100000 no matter how you cut it. The more accurate average is 1320/100000 as I posted above. And even still that's not counting insurgent or civilian deaths, in the same way that the DC statistic is counting all firearm-related deaths and not just those of security personnel.

*Sighs again*

Here's the math:

2112 Deaths in 22 months.
Average Soldier Population is 160,000
2112 / 1.6 = 1320 per 100,000
1320 / 22 = 60 Deaths per 100,000 per month.

Do you get it now? We're right back to that magical word, "monthly".

August · 04-17-09, 11:09 PM

Or more simply about 1 in 1700.

BTW historically speaking that is the "best" rate than our nation has ever experienced in a war, ever.

IIRC From the Revolution to WW2 the US kia rate averaged about 1 in 15. In Vietnam it was about 1 in 1500.

baggygreen · 04-18-09, 02:32 AM

I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well.

It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. *shrug*

04-17-09, 03:03 PM	#1
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,473 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Fact? 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: Maybe its time the U.S. pull out of Washington? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

04-17-09, 03:05 PM	#2
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	You just want to get it back, you sneaky bugga! __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

04-17-09, 03:15 PM	#3
Digital_Trucker Silent Hunter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Peach State Posts: 4,171 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 10	Personally, I think we should just pick DC up and move it about 200 miles due East of its current location. That would be about the right spot for it. __________________ RSM-GIEP-Killflags-LV Tribute-Playable Elco __Peace be with you, Dave.

04-17-09, 05:11 PM	#12
Digital_Trucker Silent Hunter Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Peach State Posts: 4,171 Downloads: 141 Uploads: 10	2,112 deaths/ 22 months = 96 deaths per month 96 deaths per month / 160,000 average monthly troop level = 60 in 100,000 probability of death in a one month period Have no idea where the DC number came from, but the Iraq number is correct __________________ RSM-GIEP-Killflags-LV Tribute-Playable Elco __Peace be with you, Dave.

04-17-09, 11:09 PM	#14
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Or more simply about 1 in 1700. BTW historically speaking that is the "best" rate than our nation has ever experienced in a war, ever. IIRC From the Revolution to WW2 the US kia rate averaged about 1 in 15. In Vietnam it was about 1 in 1500. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

04-17-09, 03:29 PM	#5
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Fiction! How does 2,112/160,000 become 60/100,000? It's actually 1,320 deaths per 100,000.

04-17-09, 03:51 PM	#6
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,052 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	I'm too drunk to understand that thing, but I vote yay!

04-18-09, 02:32 AM	#15
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	I see why fatty thought the way he did, because that was my initial (albeit tired) thought as well. It raises another point, which is that the west appears to have become a little overly sensitive to soldiers dying in combat. funnily enough, thats an occupational hazard that soldiers accept when they enlist, but the media and a proportion of the public think this is unacceptable. shrug