You're right. I was just restating what CNN said in it's report. I'm not a military person, so tell me, when someone "joins the military", do they get to choose the reserve, or is that up to the military to decide. I know that's probably a very naive question but the truth is (don't get mad now) I've never paid much attention to the processes of the military and I have no idea how all that works. Maybe you "join the reserve" instead of the army etc?

>Ok, the death rates are listed per 100,000. Let's look at the numbers:
>
>Total active duty: 1,411,287
>Total Guard/Reserve: 66,000
>Total Reserve Full Time: 234,629
>Total For Computations: 1,711,916
>Total Active Duty all Components: 2,659,000 (I won't use this number)
># of Military Deaths in 2004: 1887 (it was 1410 in 2003 but we'll use the higher number)
>
>Deaths per 100,000 in 2004: 110
>Deaths per 100,000 in 1999: 32.4
>End Strength in 1999: 1525942 Deaths 788 Ratio: 51.63
>
>Last year, the military lost 310 service members and employees to car crashes alone
>
>That puts yr 2004 at number 2 (after Timber Cutters which were at 117.8) and ahead of Fishers
>and yr 1999 (a typical year) at (#5 on the list after Metal Workers & before Roofers)
>
>31,000 convenience store clerks are shot every year (I had no idea)
>
>The problem with the combat related deaths is that they cover 1 May 2003 to the present which encompasses multiple years. For a true comparison, you have to break it down to the number of deaths per 100,000 for the same year. The most recent statistics I found numbers for (which I posted) were for 2003.
>
>http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf
>
>
>>Except that you are linking to a money cnn report from 2003. If you link to the current one from August 2006 here, you'll see partway down the page, the following statement:
>>
>>

>>The BLS does not count combat deaths in its survey;
>>if it did, the military would undoubtedly have qualified
>>as America's most dangerous job last year.
>>

>>
>>I suspect the Bureau of Labour Statistics didn't include combat deaths in 2003 either.
>>
>>>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.