Thanks for a good "bad example" to use in a "numeracy" lecture to journalism students. That 487 figure is not made up -- it's straight from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (see the report below).
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfo...oi/
cftb0192.pdf
But its accuracy is irrelevant. Notice the editorial's wording, "487 people were shot to death at work." That total apparently includes every police officer, cab driver, bank teller, pawnbroker and quicky-mart employee shot and killed "at work," whether the shooter was a fleeing criminal, disgruntled customer, armed robber -- or someone in a more relevant category like "angry employee" or "fed-up manager."
In this case I doubt that better stats would change readers' minds (or the editorial board's collective opinion) about issues like gun ownership, workers' rights, or corporation/employer rights. Badly-chosen or misleadlingly-applied stats certainly don't help.
The largets group of deaths in the 16 page report (145) is noted as "Sales". So of course the majority are front line cash register folks in the usual suspect places. Fast food, gas stations, liquor stores et al. The AJC article did not break out intentional work place rage type incidents from run of the mill smash and grab robberies.
Commenting by HaloScan
