Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
|
So what that article is saying is that if it weren't for the improvised explosive devices, Iraq is safer than parts of DC? Whoopee.
BTW, that just counts gun deaths. Since troops have body armor and faster access to emergency medical care, their survivability is 10 to 1. This means that those 88 deaths might include 800 wounded.
I doubt that someone shot in DC has access to a medic or is wearing body armor, especially since many states now make it illegal for anyone with a prior felony conviction to possess body armor.
Also, not all of those 160,000 troops are in Iraq or patrolling civilian areas. Many are in supply positions in fortified bases. Being shot at while on a base is pretty rare. Most of those on-base casualties are from mortars or suicide bombers. If all coalition troops had to patrol any part of Iraq, you would see a huge jump in those numbers.
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!
I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. --
Barack Hussein Obama