|
| "James Calivar" <amheiserbush@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:OJ2re.4150$pa3.659@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
quote:
> mark wrote:
>
> Let's see if we can spell this one out for you, since you obviously didn't
> understand the connection. The total number of deaths for troops in Iraq
> *includes* those by explosive device. The conclusion being drawn is that
> you're more likely to be shot and killed by a gun in DC than you are if
> you're on patrol in Iraq.
> Does that make any sense now?
No Einstein it did not say that at all...let's all quote from the original
post....
"There have been an average of 160,000 troops stationed in Iraq during the
last 22 months. During this time the ****firearm**** death total was 2,112
for a ****firearm**** death rate of 60 per 100,000." (**** = my emphasis
added).
It specifically says firearm death rate...not the death rate by all means.
If the original poster said the *total* death rate was 60 per 100,000 then
it's a different story. FYI, a firearm is not an explosive device.
No apology necessary.
|
|