quote:And, not trying to be aurgumentive, but comparing the civilian related deaths to the ENTIRE population, against those of the Military related deaths, is really a bit out of proportion....dont you think?
Quite simply - No. By showing these numbers we accurately show that " your safer within the military, than in civilian life. "
It would be different if we were comparing 2000 deaths to 200 thousand deaths. Then it would be a biased, unresearched, non-representative sample of the death ratio. In fact just by being percentages, which by defination means amount up to 100 - therfore putting both numerical groups on an even keel - shows a conclusive ratio of deaths to sample. Also those numbers show total deaths in the military - NOT just active duty personnel. That includes accidents in Germany, or Nebraska, or anywhere else in the world. Now, does that mean that a single death in either group is "OK"? No, but let's not debate data with rhetoric. This tired tirade of 'Big Brother Government' is always lying to us is getting to be a bit rediculous. Forgive me for being childish, but you do have the right to choose elsewhere to live.
Now, in a way, I can agree with you that statistical data can be miss-represented by taking specific values from one group and comparing to specifics of another. BUT, in this case we are not singling out specifics. This is ALL deaths, accidental, purposefull, or other, for both groups - Military vs US Civilian. By doing thus, we can keep specificity, and data corruption out of the equation. I know this is a reiterization, but it's an important point.