An interesting letter was published in the Australian Shooter Magazine recently, which I quote: "If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers." "The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq " Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington.
wait, how is 2112/160,000 over 22 months the same as 60/100,000. It's only the same if it's a per month statistic i.e. 60/100,000 per month. Do on average 80 people out of every 100,000 die in Washington from firearms every month? (Note that sounds like I'm being a prick, but I'm honestly not trying to be) That statistic seems a bit wrong, I reckon it's by someone who doesn't do maths that well, unless Washington is obscenely dangerous.
It compares ARMED soldiers deaths (fewer) to DISARMED citizens (more, due to their inability to arm and defend themselves). It mirrors the increase in armed crimes in Australia since they confiscated guns from their citizens there.
I think the two statistics aren't the same, though. I don't believe that about 480 people die in Washington D.C every month as a result of guns (or up to 4800 if it's Washington the state), so I think that one statistic is per month, whilst one is per year, so their conclusion is based on comparing a yearly statistic with a monthly one, which is obviously going to be misguided.
I didn't realize Shooter had his own magazine, but not surprised it's published by Rupert Murdoch. Australian Shooter Magazine denies ever printing this letter. http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3624810
