Re: "I used 150,000 because I averaged over three years...and that is closer to the average over that time period"
Well, the author used 22 months. You do need to do it his way if you wish to see if his blurb is close to correct. You utterly fail to defend your math with that explanation. Of course, comparing firearm deaths instead of all soldier deaths will be far more significant that whether you use 150,000 troops or 160,000 troops.
Re: "Even if you look at firearm deaths...it's still way off. Show me the data."
I've just said I doubt the author's numbers, though the more you BS the more I can imagine they may be truer than I think. I don't know. You, on the other hand, have just said the author is way off. Sorry, but with that, the charge to prove a case lies with you (and if you can do so, I wouldn't be surprised).
Re: "If Iraq is safer than Washington DC than perhaps you and the author should pack up your bags and move there.
Aren't you the little redneck? LOL. Neither the author nor I spoke of Iraq being safer than Washington D.C., save the author in terms limited to death by firearm.
My comment was that I doubt the authors figures because I see for starters, that he can't even correctly figure percentages. Now you want me to move to Iraq. You really are a piece of work, do you know? Don't wait for a postcard, LOL.
Dan B. |
