Those are actuarial statistics based on per capita rates. The military doesn't even make the list. They have less of a chance of getting killed in their profession than those on the list (statistically speaking). The apologist crowd will just ignore the facts and make up their liberal gobbly-gook (sp?). The libs don't want facts and logic, they want "make-me-feel-good" emotionalism.


>Have you looked at the internet for dangerous jobs? I did a google and found 2 different sites that list 10 of the most hazardous jobs.
>
>http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/13/pf/dangerousjobs/
>http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/03/0903worksafe.html
>
>how many jobs other then the military have over 1 million (not sure of the exact number) employed at the same time? Timber cutters lost 84 out of 100,000 in 2002.
>
>>You said this:
>>"the military is no more dangerous than most other professions"
>>
>>I'm not sidestepping anything by saying I think you're wrong and that is ridiculous. (yeah my spelling stinks...heh)
>>
>>What other professions here in the USA lost 105 people last month due to the nature of the job, hummm? I assure you that "most other professions" did not loose 105 people due to the nature of their job. What does this have to do with driving your car? ...unless you're a truck driver or something....
>>
>>
>>
>>>Again, without side-stepping the argument:
>>>
>>>Statistics show that you have a greater chance of being killed or seriously injured by driving your car than you do by being in the military. Therefore, driving is more dangerous than being in the military.
>>>
>>>P.S. The word is "ridiculous"
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Tamar:
>>>>>... the military is no more dangerous than most other professions.....
>>>>
>>>>That's ridicilious.