What is the annual firearm death rate in Washington, DC?  In other
words, what percentage of total population dies by firearm-related
deaths annually?  I need a reliable primary source for the information
- not just an answer.

Not quite the answer, but applicable.  I guess you got the "pull out
of D.C." email, too.  I'm about to try snopes.  In any case, the US
gun death numbers are striking.

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/resources/facts/reader/0,2055,568606,00.html

Facts

From 1981 to 2000, firearms were involved in 354,540 suicides, 281,904
homicides, and 27,470 unintentional shooting deaths.

Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). National
Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002, p. 44.

Related Facts


A 2002 study found that while guns are used in only a small fraction
of all crimes, they are used in a majority of all intentional injury
deaths (both homicide and suicide).

Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). National
Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 44.

In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the United States,
including 16,586 (58%) suicides, 11,071 (39%) homicides (including 270
deaths due to legal intervention), and 1,006 (4%) undetermined/
unintentional firearm deaths.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002) National
Vital Statistics Report Volume 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 69.

In 2000, 64% of all homicides and 57% of all suicides in the United
States resulted from the use of a firearm.

Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). National
Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 44.

According to the FBI, there were 56 law enforcement officers murdered
in the line of duty in 2002.

Source: US Department of Justice (2003). Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted in 2002.
May 12, 2003.

Firearms were used in 51 out of the 56 deaths of law enforcement
officers. Handguns were used in 38 cases, rifles in 9 and shotguns in
4.

Source: US Department of Justice (2003). Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted in 2002.
May 12, 2003.

I did get the "pull out of DC" email and thought it sounded
ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure the email compares a monthly figure to an
annual figure but wanted to get the correct numbers from a reliable
source.  Thanks for the info, and please let me know if you find
anything.

"In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the United States"

Let's continue that train of thought:  How many people we killed in
automobile accidents?  How many drowned in their bathtubs?  How many
people were killed accidentally by their doctors?

According to your same source, most accidental deaths involve or are
due to motor vehicles (42%), falls (13%), poisoning (12%), suffocation
(6%), drowning (4%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (3%), and
environmental factors (2%).  Firearms are involved in only 0.8% of
accidental deaths.  According to these numbers, you are almost four
times as likely to be killed accidentally by your physician than by
your gun.  And automobiles account for over 50 times more accidental
deaths than do guns!  If confronting the source of accidental death is
your goal, your priorities may need review.

This does not include the answer to the question you asked, but it
does address some pertinent questions surrounding the "pull out of DC"
email:

Starting with the murder (not firearm death) rate per 100,000
population for 2004, if you use the city per capita murder rate
(http://www.morganquitno.com/cit04r.pdf, higher than the greater metro
region, http://www.morganquitno.com/met04r.pdf) you get 35.8
murders/100K population (That's 198 murders--DC population  553,523
(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html).

In Iraq for the same time period (2004), there were 848 US fatalities
(http://icasualties.org/oif/). The "pull out of DC" email troop
strength numbers of 160,000 are probably high. If we use the US ground
troop numbers over the same period (2004), we get an average of
133,917 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_es.htm).
This makes the US troop murder rate (for lack of a better term) 633
per 100,000.

That's almost 20 times higher the rate of DC, and almost 10 times New
Orleans' number two rate (second to Camden, NJ's number one rate of
60.8 per 100,000 (just to interject another issue to the
conversation).

While these numbers are for 2004, and not "the last 22 months" they
likely indicate that the "pull out of DC" emailer, in addition to
being a little insensitive to the sacrifices being made in Iraq, also
has a little trouble with decimal points.

If these are the criteria, we should probably not pull out of Camden,
New Orleans, or DC; or, for that matter, Iraq, unless the sender's
appreciation of the sacrifice being made there is representative of
the US or general Iraqi population, which I hope that it is not.

I love statistics so I looked up the number of deaths this year to
date in D.C. This is according to the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,Q,543308,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C,.asp
Unless I misunderstood the numbers as they are being presented, the
number of homicides as of today?s date is 177. It is not clear if all
of these are by firearms.  The number of homicides is down from 182
last year, to date.  If that information is correct, then Iraq is
still a much more dangerous place for American citizens to be.  And
certainly for Iraqi?s, Washington, D.C. would be a much safer place to
live.

While I thought the "joke" about pulling out of D.C. was kind of
funny, I couldn't believe that those figures were right, so I checked
them. They are not even anywhere close based on my calculations.
Whoever published that email really twisted his statistics.

According to the email, there have been 2112 deaths in 22 months.
	Average US soldier population in Iraq was 160,000
	2112 / 1.6 = 1320 deaths per 100,000
	1320 deaths / 22 months = 60 deaths per MONTH per 100,000

DC has had 188 murders so far this year, 11 months. http://www.safestreetsdc.com/
	Population of D.C. is around 550,000 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108620.html
	188 deaths / 5.5 = 34.2 deaths per 100,000
	34.2 deaths / 11 months = 3.1 deaths per MONTH per 100,000

So take your pick:
D.C. = 3 people killed per MONTH for every 100,000
Iraq = 60 soldiers killed per MONTH for every 100,000 (or 2 per DAY
for every 100,000!!!)

I am not sure about this one.

80.1 deaths per 100,000 per year for Washington DC is 443.
443/553,000*100,000=80.1 per 100,000. I do know how many are murdered
each year in Washington DC. But, I do not think it is that many. I
think the murder rate is more in a range of 30 to 50 per 100,000 per
year.

There will be about 1900 deaths in Iraq due to combat projected to 3
years. 1900/3 or 633 per year. 633/160,00 * 100,000 = 396 per 100,000
per year. This is not 60 per 100,000 in the note. Another comment
indicated 60 per 100,000 per month. A year in Iraq carries .004 chance
of dying from hostile fire. This risk would vary according to mission
and location within Iraq. The wounded and severly injured is another
issue.

Are and were the deaths and injuries worth it? Were deaths and
injuries on Omaha Beach (big mistakes in tactics and execution) worth
it? My answer is yes. Were the deaths and injuries in Vietnam worth
it? My answer is no. Is the action in Iraq an ill-conceived battle in
the War on Terror? Only, history will tell about Iraq.

All of this analysis seems valid, until you consider one important
factor:  that is the difference between a soldier fighting a war,
versus the everyday schmuck living in D.C.  How can you even begin to
compare the two?!  Shouldn't a a guy working at a D.C. 7-11 feel 1000
times safer than a soldier in battle?

Why not compare the death rate of soldiers in Afghanistan & Iraq from
2001 to 2005, versus the death rate of civilians in two skyscrapers on
ONE particular day in 2001!

Or you could compare apples to apples, such as the death rate of:
US Soldiers over a two hour span in Pearl Harbor
US Soldiers on the tiny island of Guadalcanal  - 1/20 the size of Cuba
US Soldiers on the even tinier island of Okinawa (1/4 the size of Guadalcanal
US Soldiers in one day at OMAHA beach
[snipped to save bandwidth]

Life for all the armchair-generals out there would sure be different
if troops had been pulled out of Europe or the Pacific when faced with
opposition and casualties far beyond what Iraq has presented.  Do they
expect war to be bloodless?  Or just easy?

Since this thread, as does most jabber about the war in Iraq, seems
more concerned with casualties than with defending freedom and
security, I will add that while the loss of even ONE US Soldier?s life
is certainly a tragedy, the military operations in the Middle East the
past four years will probably be recorded as among some of the least
costly operations in US Military History.

-G

The figures quoted in the email are more in-line if you realize that
most US KIAs are due IEDs and not firearms.

Very interesting comments in this thread. 

Consider this... if not mistaken, the 2112 deaths in 22 months
includes all types of deaths, including by fire arm, IED, traffic
accident, suicide, heart attack, etc.

When taken in this context it would appear that Iraq actually IS a
safer place for Americans to reside, on a purely statistical basis.

Dan W

Very interesting comments in this thread. 

>>>>"Consider this... if not mistaken, the 2112 deaths in 22 months
includes all types of deaths, including by fire arm, IED, traffic
accident, suicide, heart attack, etc.

When taken in this context it would appear that Iraq actually IS a
safer place for Americans to reside, on a purely statistical basis."

2112 deaths in 22 months, gives a death rate of approximately 750
deaths/100,000 persons/year.  Like I said this is just an
approximation.

While the US death rate is over 5000/100,000 persons/year, this is due
mainly b/c of deaths of people over the age of 65.  The death rate in
the 15-24 group is 90/100,000/year, and 25-44 age group is
177/100,000/year.  So I think it would appear that Iraq is not a safer
place.

I think another thing to not is that this "pull out" email cherry
picks the data (by focusing on one of the most dangerous cities in
America), then falsifies it (by exagerrating the number of deaths in
Washington D.C.), and then compares apples to oranges (by comparing to
the death rate of ALL U.S. troups in Iraq.  What do you think the
death rate of U.S. troops is in the most dangerous parts of Iraq?

Since the Iraq-DC Email is circulating again, I thought I would respond.

The annual D.C. murder rate was actually down a bit in 2004 to 35.8
per 100K.  In 2003, the rate was 44.2 per 100K.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl05a.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl05.xls

Current Iraq-DC Email says 2,154 deaths in 22 months.  That means 98
deaths per month or 1,175 per year.  With a population of 160,000
troops, that yields an annual rate of 734 per 100K.

As for determining how many of the murders in D.C. were by gunfire,
one would have to rely upon some extrapolation.  The BJS has a lot of
detailed info.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

If one adds up the first two columns, handguns and other guns, then in
2002 [across all of America] 66.8 percent of all murder victims died
from gunfire.

If the murder rate is grounds for pulling out of an American city,
there are other cities with a higher murder rate.  In cities with a
population over 500K, Baltimore and Detroit.  Drop down to the 100K
level, and you can add New Orleans, Gary and Richmond.  [See Table 8
of the FBI UCR].
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_08.html

I support the War in Iraq, and I oppose restrictive D.C. gun laws.

Ken Grubb
Bellevue, WA

Even if these stats are correct which I seriously doubt, they don?t
take into account Iraqi civilian deaths or deaths on both sides of the
Iraqi military/insurgency.

What exactly are you doubting?

U.S. casualty numbers are widely reported in a number of media
sources.  Duration there in Iraq has also been widely reported in a
number of media sources.  Exact U.S. troop strength may not be
accurately known to the man, or woman, even by the Pentagon.  However,
I suspect they have a pretty good idea and know a number within
hundreds to a thousand.

As for Iraqi civilian casualties, yes, they are likely guesswork at
this point.  30K was a recent SWG by the President.

Didn't think the stats were correct concerning the Iraq vs DC firearms
deaths but pulling out of DC is a good idea.

The rate arrived at for firearm deaths in Iraq was figured by taking
the number of deaths due to hostile fire(88), which is much lower than
the actual number of deaths (2166). The originator did not include the
other deaths because they were caused by incidents other than hostile
gunfire i.e. vehicle accidents, IED's, workplace accidents, and heath
conditions. So while the figures are accurate for the comparison of
the number of deaths attributed to firearms, they do not represent
what most would consider to be a fair comparison.

My brother, in the insurance business, pointed out to me another fact.
  There are about a million people in the military between 18 and 25,
and if you consider that, the death rate in the miliary is just about
even with that of simply being that age.   I don't have the sources to
hand, so hopefully someone on this board can verify it.  But I thought
that is amazing how over-reported "politically incorrect" deaths are. 
Check out the recent reporter incident.  I wonder how many head
injuries were incured in the US in traffic this past week??

If there were 60 deaths for every 100,000, we'd only be talking about
96 deaths total, not 2112 (actually 2766 today) since 160,000 /
100,000 = 1.6  and therefore 1.6 * 60 = 96. According to
icasualties.org, only 196 deaths have been attributed to small arms
fire and I'm pretty sure D.C. is clear of any carbombs and landmines
(which total 1198 deaths). But sticking to firearms, we've got a death
rate of (196 * .6) 117 per 100,000.

In Washington D.C there were just over 500.000 people in the
population and, according to the D.C. Metro Police website, 195
deaths.  That's a death rate of 39 per 100,000 per year. That's a
third of the death rate in Iraq.

But, since 22 months is almost two years, Iraq is at (196 / 24) 8
deaths of American soldiers per month. Total deaths is more like (2766
/ 24) 115 deaths of American soldiers per month.

At this rate, American soldier deaths would equal the number "violent
crimes" a year in D.C. in just 7 months. That includes non-death
crimes.

To help answer the orginal question, check out
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm
and hit submit on the form.

Scroll down to District of Columbia. It will be less than 198 because
their figures include all murder and homocide and etcetera,
etcetera...

Not to belittle the importance, fear, and "Terror" of being in a
battle zone, a place where we do not understand the language or
culture and many people hate us and want to kill us and where the
thought of life and death is constant, but not all deaths reported in
Irag are homicides.  Really you would simply compare the death rate of
130K or 160K of the soldier population to the death rate in a city
such as DC and include all deaths to determine which is more
dangerous.  Some soildiers probaly do commit suicide after seeing what
they see.  I suspect conveinient store clerks or prostitute have the
highest motality rate per capita.  It is funny how light we take
driving motor vehicles and how much we worry about "terror" when we
are much more likely to be maimed, mutilated or killed in a car crash
then we are of having a building blow up and fall on us.  I strongly
support our troops and wish them God speed to bring them home safe
from harm, but they may be in nearly as much true peril here as they
are there.  If they are not firemen, police officers or ER doctors and
nurses when they are here though, they certainly see horrors there
that they would not experience here.  Just food for thought.  I
suspect it is the Irags' themselves that having the highest mortality
per capita in there self presented quest to be free in a democratic
society.

I think the really important issue here is that some of the data is skewed.

In order for this to become an accurate comparrison to any place in
the world, you would have to do several things:
1. Compare ALL Deaths (other than "natural causes")
     - If you want a true comparrison, you have to know the total
number of deaths; murder, accident, unintentional...and include all
causes; firearm, knife, drowning, etc. This gives you the "true
danger" of living in an area because your numbers would reflect the
RATE OF DEATH of a city. We cannot only count AMERICAN Soldiers in
Iraq and AMERICAN Citizens in Washington DC, it skews the numbers.
2. Realize that statistics can be bad from the beginning
     - If I am DUI and I kill someone with my car after being involved
in a car accident, my statistics are counted in three areas: Alcohol
Related, Vehicle Related and Accidental. We either need to calculate
an error rate, or break the data down so granular it would be
difficult to work with.
3. Realize that "going to a battle zone" is nothing like "living in a city" 
     - When a soldier goes to a battle zone, it is more like a police
officer woring in the city. Both jobs require one particular type of
individual to be put into harm's way, not the common person. So if the
US Soldier Death Rate is higher than for the citizen of any particular
city, that is EXPECTED.
4. Regarding #3, being a soldier or even a police officer is NOT the
most dangerous job in the world
     - Timber Cutters, Fishermen and Pilots all rank as the most
dangerous jobs in America, and, not surprisingly, they all rank as the
most dangerous jobs in the world.
5. The number of soldiers CURRENTLY in Iraq is different that the
TOTAL number of soldiers who have served IN Iraq
     - When we talk about the number of deaths of soldiers in Iraq,
the number of how many soldiers stationed there at that moment is
used. However, there has been a change in how many have actually
served in Iraq. We send 2000 troops, we recall 500...we send 1000 and
recall 1500...we send in another 1000 and still have 2000 troops, but
actually 4000 troops were put in harms way. A city population is like
this as well, but has a more stable base population.
However, this might only be a problem if we count only the American
Troops...I don't know how this flux would affect the total population
of Iraq.
6. Population Density
     - In the US we sometimes take for granted that you can travel for
3000 miles and not leave this country. In order to make a good
comparrison, you have to find a similarly populated area. Population
density has to be taken into account, the number of people who live
per square mile. Even if it is on a CITY level and not a STATE,
COUNTY, or COUNTRY level.

These are just some thoughts as to why we need to be careful about
these statistics...as the old addage goes, "Lies, Damn Lies, and
Statistics."

he most recent numbers seemto show DC having a firearms death rate of
26.9 but that was in 2003.
(http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=profile&category=Health+Status&subcategory=Deaths+due+to++Firearms&topic=Firearms+Death+Rate+per+100%2c000&link_category=&link_subcategory=&link_topic=&welcome=0&area=District+of+Columbia)

I'm surprised that Iraq is that safe. i would probably attribute that
to the US armies porr marksmanship especially now they seem to have
significantly reduced the number of deaths due to 'friendly fire'.

Most importantly, the email fails to include civilian deaths in Iraq
as a result of the war, whether inflicted by the US or terrorists.  A
recent study estimated 590,000 civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of
the war, which appears to be about 1,000 times greater than any
equivalently sized area in the US.

As stated in above postings, the stats are a bit out of proportion as
is easy to do (mistakenly or otherwise) with statistics, coupled with
what seems to be a few calculation errors.

The simple truth that cannot be manipulated by figures is we are in World War 3. 
It has been repeatedly declared upon us and acted on against us for
over a decade by organized, very intelligent but twisted radicals.
We should wake up to that FACT.
I don't believe in war- it's hell. 
I believe in freedom and that is what war has been waged against by
Islamic terrorist.
Terrorist who brainwash children to the point of feeling glorified to
become human bombs.- OF ANY KIND, the bigger the better.
There is no appeasement of their desire for world domination.
To do nothing is what lead up to 9-11 and in history World War 2.
To adjust our strategy to accommodate changes, and new knowledge is a must.

I salute the brave soldiers for our freedom - all of them throuout our
breif history as a country. They put it all on the line for our
freedom.
 
I would very much welcome the simple statistic of how many attacks on
US and it's outposts (other than in Iraq) like embassies and ships and
even here (World Trade center twice) happened in the 5 or so years
prior to Afghanistan & Iraq and how many since?
Odd how no one is counting that simple unmanipuative number?