Oh no, not that one again.

From the always-educational Barking Moonbat Early Warning System:

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington D.C.(among others) is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% 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.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington, DC.

Luckily, we have a copy of this!

So, 2112* deaths out of 160,000** = 60 deaths per 100,000? [scribbly pencil noises] Sixty percent of… divide by… Hmm. That doesn’t seem very mathematical at all. Let’s look at some actual figures.

Murder rate in Washington, DC, 2004: 35.8 per 100,000 population.
US troops killed in Iraq, 2004: 633 per 100,000 troops.

That’s close enough for conservative punditry: They’re only wrong by less than 1800%. It’s also true that these figures are expressed in Arabic numerals — so perhaps the real question is why numbers hate America. But we also find this explanation in comments:

If you eliminate non-combat deaths and deaths caused by IED?s etc. and concentrate on only deaths caused caused as a result of a firearms, then you would have actual deaths of 96 by firearm, if I am understanding Skippers logic. Which tells me that all in all, the Islamofacists are pretty poor shots and find it easier to hide bombs in the skirts of women. Which is not to say that I am in favor of staying the course in DC.
Posted by yatalli on 11/29/2005 at 09:37 AM

Yes, that might explain it — if only it weren’t a made-up number calculated backwards from the 60-per-100,000 thing. It’s very hard to check figures on the Internet, but…

[Ow, ow, ow! Google-google… Ow, it burns!] DoD figures list 507 US troops dead in Iraq due to hostile fire (not including IEDs).

So that last figure is only wrong by slightly more than 500%. Keep crunching those numbers, wingnuts — the results are clearly improving.

[*] Someone has been listening to too many Rush albums — the current official number is 2107, with three new listings pending.
[**] This number is also wrong.


Comments: 33


You caught me. But then, if one looks at the entry below and sees how the CIA director isn’t spelled ‘Porter Gross’…


It’s become magically correct! Hooray!


None of this ever happened, of course.


man, what losers.

they don’t even allow people coming from this site to post comments.

i gotta admit….when one of their commenters asked for help in calculating a ratio given 2 numbers. i felt like crying.


That doesn’t even take into account that it’s stupid to compare troop deaths in Iraq to civilian murders in DC. Morons.


it’s not stupid if you aren;t part of the reality-based community. you get to come up with specialized courses in asshattery like these clowns have obviously done. they are productive members of society. not civlized society, but some society(like the oakland raiders for example)


True, Brad.

To correct that, you’d have to count civillian deaths in both areas.

But that doesn’t count the fact that murder deaths are not the same as firearm deaths (the statistic in question), that the statistic in question should be non-terrorist murder deaths, that…but we could go on.


Andrew- let’s keep it simple and just count the number of monthly kidnappings in Baghdad and DC. THAT should shut the wingers up 😉


Wait — the wingnuts are offering to pull out of DC? I like the sound of that.


I like how the non-combat deaths and deaths caused by IED?s don’t count.

Dear Madam,
We regret to inform you that your son was killed in action while serving in Iraq. However, he was not actually shot, but rather was hit by an IED, therefore we cannot call him a hero.

Yours Truly,
The Wingnuts.


A coworker of mine, who is staunchly pro-Bush administration, came to work the other day with the shiny “fact” that there were more military deaths under Clinton than under Bush. I tried looking around the Net for confirmation or refutation, but found none. Has anyone here heard this same line, and know anything about it?


I can’t find it over there. Did they get embarassed and throw it down the memory hole or something?


Hold on; I’ll change the link so it points to that entry…


strange forces,

your “friend” is lying to you. well, technically, parroting a lie told to him.

at best, it’s a grossly disingenous application of statistics (ie: # of *peacetime* military deaths: Clinton vs. Bush–oops, someone forgot to mention “peacetime”!)

at worst, it’s just an outright lie meant to fortify unreality and selfishly maintain support and “respect” for the liar.

either way your friend is unable to differentiate assholes from saints, and you should discourage him from ever voting again.


I’m pretty sure they got that number of 60 per 100,000 by taking the number of deaths (2112), dividing by the number of months (22), and then dividing by the number of 100’s of thousands of people there (1.6) to get 60 deaths per month per 100,000 troops.

I have grave doubts that 80.6 people per 100,000 are killed in Washington DC due to firearms deaths. I’m pretty damn sure they’re lying with those numbers, and it’s pretty damn misleading to not put down that it’s 60 PER MONTH, per 100,000 people, but the numbers do check out if you divide by the number of months that way.


Sure. But ignoring the fact that every number in their equation is wrong, if it’s really a per-month figure, then compare it to murders-per-month in DC, according to the link.

Staggeringly wrong, no?


So wrong, it’s the anti-matter equivalent of right. Just being exposed to it starts destroying things that you once thought were right…

…Intelligent design…now, what is wrong with that theory again?


Yes, the number of soldiers killed every month in DC is really horrible.


Christ allmighty, how much longer will dipshits like that be able to pass this on as anything other than the false information it is? There isn’t anyone taking them to task on it, and I can’t… Why are comments disallowed?
Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


Why are comments disallowed?

I wonder why..


D.C. has a population of over 500,000. If they are losing 80.6 per 100,000 per month to gun violence bush baby would’ve wet his pants by now.


It’s bizarro-right.

These guys are so far right, they’re liberal*

*with numbers.


Just wondering – how many people are annually killed in Washington DC by improvised explosive devices?


Just wondering – how many people are annually killed in Washington DC by improvised explosive devices?


I’d like to know why they’re not comparing the number of security forces murdered per month in D.C. (cops) vs. the number of security forces murdered per month in Iraq (our guys and the alleged billions of newly trained Iraqi Army).

The comparison is so out there in batshit crazy country it boggles the mind.

On another note, the incessant quoting of 160,000 (and 120,000 when that was the alleged number) of U.S. troops there frames such a bullshit image of how many troops have been there, many on multiple tours including a few friends of mine.

There have been 3 times that number in Iraq…..not at one time grant you….but how many people out there in lala land who get their news from their 6pm evening news realize that over half a million people have been in Iraqi combat at LEAST once?

I don’t think that number would come close to 20% of the population.


Hey! I liked your site very much! Big Tournament Win or not: http://cityguide.aol.com/main.adp , Red Chips is always Lazy Table Hedge Opponents is very good Boy , Lazy Opponents Fetch or not when Pair is Player it will Hope Plane


In reference to your posting of the comparison of U.S.troop deaths versus D.C. murder rates.

It seems that some of you are actually noticing that something is amiss in the article. Good.

First, lets find the source for the D.C. statistics ? the 1999 and 2000 statistics conforms to the article:

See: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

You will find that there was a total of 480 D.C. murders in 1999 and 2000 and that the D.C. average population for the two years (1999 and 2000) is 545,530. You need this info to correctly evaluate the statistics.

To determine the deaths per 100,000 for 22-months, perform the following calculation:

(480 / 545,530 * 100,000 * 22 /24) = 80.6

The 22/24 provides the 22-month conversion from 2 years of data.

For U.S. soldiers in Iraq, we know the 22-month death rate to be 2,112 from the AP wire service; therefore the calculation is:

(2,112 / 160,0000 * 100,000 ) = 1,320

The correct comparison is 1,320 deaths per 100,000 soldiers for 22-months versus 80.6 D.C. murders per 100,000 over 22-months.

This means that 16.4 times more U.S. citizens (soldiers in Iraq) were killed than in D.C. over the 22-month deployment.

Conclusion: It’s more dangerous to be a U.S. soldier deployed in Iraq than in D.C.

You may be interested to know that the “bogus death rate story” is being reported as FACT by some politicians. Namely, Rick Snuffer, of West Virginia. Snuffer wants to challange Sen. Byrd in the 2006 election.

Snuffer reported the conclusion that “… we are 25% more likely to be killed in D.C. than in Iraq.”
See the “Byrd on Irag” story published on December 1, 2005, in the Register-Herald.


Thururn Barker
Hendersonville, NC


The 80.6 number is legit although it’s from 1991 (482 deaths for a population of 598,000). Some moron tried to make a comparison to the first Gulf War when only 148 were killed in battle.


Also, the 60 deaths/year refer to gun fatalities; the other deaths (the 2000+ the e-mailer refers to) are via other methods, mostly suicide bombers.


A little research
So I decided to do a little research, here it goes:


According to the Washington Post, over 3 years there has been 2,321 deaths to the 592,002 soldiers in “persons years” (see wikipedia/dictionary) between March 21, 2003, and March 31, 2006.
[Source: Washington Post (I had to add irony)]
It also says that 79% of these deaths were caused by action of hostile forces.

79% of 2,321 is 1833.5900000000001. Lets round.

so about 1,800/592,000 deaths occured over three years in Iraq that were in relation to hostile forces.

Lets Reduce


and round.


So there is 1/289 chance that you will die in Iraq.

Now – to make this only fair, lets compare it to the United States.


Unfortunately there are no official reports of death by homicide (Weapon) between 2004 and 2006, so I’ll use whats available (2001-2003).
[Source: Government Homicide Tables]
The numbers from the previous years are pretty static, so the numbers may only be off by .2-7%.

Between the years 2001 and 2003 there were a total of 48,869 deaths related to homicide by various weapons.

United States Population History Estimate
[Source: US Census]


So theres a 48,869/864,148,280 you’ll die by homocide in the United States. Lets round.

48,900 / 864,148,300

Lets reduce


and round



While in Iraq between 2003-2006 there was a
1 in 289
chance you will die in hostile assault.
In the United States (not in a concentrated crime area), there is a
chance that you will die from homicide or assault with a deadly weapon.

Bonsai Kittens are not real, I called the SPCA
Because you did not re-post a bulletin, a little girl wont kill you, and you wont be loveless or lose love for life… or be unlucky .. in fact, anything involving reposting a bulletin is not true.
Emails and Letters cant grant wishes (but miracles do happen, i don’t doubt that) and,

There is a much larger chance of dieing due to similar or related homicide crimes if deployed to Iraq, than you would staying in the United States as a Civilian.

(let me know if theres any math errors, I’ll make corrections – we all make mistakes.)


Yea, did you stupid ass forget those are not numbers…they are KIDS!!! Who ever put up this sight needs to have a loved one over there and see the two military persons come up to your door for the addition of NUMBERS. Your simply a low life who knows who to put up a sight. You talk about our dead kids like numbers in the street and you’d get your fucking ass kick pussy!


(comments are closed)