Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (75422)	4/14/2006 12:02:25 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

I thought you'd like that one. But a lie? One wonders. I certainly don't know, and you don't show that you do either. You speak of three years, they speak of less than 2 years. They use 160,000 troops average, you speak of 150,000 average. Most significantly I'm sure though, is that they speak of "firearm death rates," while you speak basically of soldiers killed. You also quote for 2002 in D.C. while they imply "the last 22 months" for both places. Yes, they don't provide a starting month or ending month, but clearly 2002 is not in the calculations unless the lead time for the S.E. post is about 2 years. So you haven't done the correct math. Yes, while considering only "firearm" death rates over the specific timeframe noted of 22 months, it seems to me there is a decent chance that the S.E.Post writes accurately (deaths by suicide bomb, for one cause, would not be "firearm" deaths, and so the author by definition leaves out many soldier deaths occurring in Iraq). Oh, I still doubt the numbers of the author, whoever he/she may have been. Mainly because (without trying to confirm anything through sources which may be available) a cursory examination of the report reveals that the author certainly fails to accurately do math too. In the blurb it is stated in essence, that 80 is 25% more than 60. Sorry to have to inform the S.E. Post that if the provided figures are accurate, they should then have written that you are 33% more likely to be "shot and killed" in D.C. than in Iraq, not just 25% as stated (80 represents of course, 33% additional "firearm deaths" over 60). Dan B.