Those are some pretty damning statistics.
Or rather they would be, if they were even REMOTELY accurate.
DoD puts out a ‘news release’ everytime a Coalition casualty is publically identified, including the cause of death.
in the UK (the 3rd largest force in Iraq, right behind ‘private contractors’) they track casualties at http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/casualties.htm
other sites, like CNN compile all those releases into a long and growing list.
(i know what you’re thinking – “CNN, why those pinko leftists wouldn’t know a casualty if it bit ‘em in the ass!”)
well, how about the Army Times then?
or try http://www.icasualties.org
– more specifically the ‘casualty metrics’ page, which has turned all those ‘news releases’ from DoD into a bar-graph –
there, you will see that ‘Hostile Fire’ is actually the leading cause of Coalition Casualties, with IEDs(2nd), RPGs(5th), electrocution(26th), etc. all listed separately.
What does this mean? If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
sure, that's the rate you get if you use bad data (and bad math).
let's try the same calculation(s) using REAL data from the DoD -
from 01/01/04 -12/31/04 (one year) there were 334 firearms-related casualties in Iraq.
using the same math as above, you will see that the 'firearm death rate' is actually 208.75 per 100,000
(nearly quadruple the rate claimed by the author)
The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000.
NO IT ISN'T.
the DC Dept. of Health tracks mortality data, by cause of death...
the most recent year for which data has been compiled is 2002.
http://dchealth.dc.gov/services/adminis ... t2002.shtm
there is no category for ‘firearms’, but there were 220 homicides in DC in 2002.
let's pretend that knives & baseball bats & tazers don’t exist,
and that ALL of these homicides were commited with firearms.
that gives DC a ‘firearm death rate’ of 38.5 per 100,000
(less than half of the rate claimed by the author).
What I don't understand is why someone would make this up and forward it in their email. It's already all over the net. It seems obvious that someone is trying to make it seem as if things aren't so bad in Iraq. That is not an argument I will get into. But I will say that it seems disrespectful to the troops to lie and claim that things aren't as bad as they really are.
(This isn't directed at Madison but at the person who made this junk up)