I know that 85000 dead out of 300 million is 0.03% and the soldiers are at 1.5%. But 85000 is 85000, know what I mean (funeral parlours must be making a fortune). At least the soldiers have an excuse, they were sent to war.
The rest of the US just live in a war zone it seems.
By the way, the british murder percentage (at home) is a mere 0.005% of the pop. over the same period.
2006-09-21 09:05:53 · 11 answers · asked by Old Cynic 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Not surprising seeing as every man and his dog is allowed a gun?!?! Pretty Stupid?! Hardly anyone has guns in NZ which means even our cops don't have to carry one on them....it's so much better. Safer. I don't understand why the U.S don't ban them...?! It's not rocket science is it.
2006-09-21 09:10:34 · answer #1 · answered by Teine 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. The numerical base is different. You say "Americans". There are 300,000,000 Americans. 85,000/300,000,000/5 = 0.00028333 or a one in 17,647 chance of being murdered in a year. When you say "at war", I am assuming (from your 2700 dead) that you mean "stationed in Iraq". There are about 135,000 US soldiers stationed in Iraq. So the chances of being killed in action in a year in Iraq are 2700/135,000/3 = 0.00666 or 1 in 150. So a soldier in Iraq is 118 times as likely to be killed in a year as an American to be murdered. It is not safer to be the soldier.
2006-09-21 09:23:58 · answer #2 · answered by alnitaka 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really, even though I do support our soldiers I do not think it is safer because they are subject to murder themselves in addition to all the things that can hurt them in war. Besides I think 2700 is low... thats just in fighting, you forget to add ones who were murdered at home on leave, car accidents outside of Iraq and anything else that isnt recorded in the normal body count.
2006-09-21 09:09:10 · answer #3 · answered by noforio 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i must have been asleep between those years. I do not remember 85000 troops being murdered in the us. Maybe 85000 by the US in other countries.
Get your facts rid before you go on you little tiraid
2006-09-21 09:10:54 · answer #4 · answered by jack_daniels 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The government should spend their billions to go after murderers in the US. It could save many more lives. It's safe to be in the right places, and an administrative position in the troops could be safer than living in downtown LA.
2006-09-21 09:38:46 · answer #5 · answered by jarynth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it is, there were other comparisons, like per population Bagdad was safer than several major US cities.
News and facts are merely how you report them. Of course the war is bad and I wish we were not there. but for now we need to be. I am just sadened that they will not just give up and let thier new nation grow.
2006-09-21 17:32:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Safer, yes but would you really want to be fighting in a war?
2006-09-21 09:34:07 · answer #7 · answered by kathy p 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But the UK is a COMMUNIST dictatorship soon to be an ISLAMIC dictatorship.
A people who would give up freedom for security deserve neither
-Ben Franklin.
For all you gun control nuts out there can you GUARANTEE you will get ALL the guns? Even in the UK there is gun crime and other crime.
2006-09-21 09:14:20 · answer #8 · answered by N3WJL 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
At least as a soldier, I have a weapon at the ready.
2006-09-21 09:07:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
that's why the American government needs to fix the gun laws.
2006-09-21 09:13:46 · answer #10 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋