Elisabeth Fosslien's Brilliant Charts Will Make You Much Smarter In The Gun-Control Debate

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/elisabeth-fossliens-gun-charts-2013-1?op=1

Many people agree that something should be done to curb mass shootings in America.

But a dearth of data about domestic gun use has sometimes hamstrung the debate.

Elisabeth Fosslien, a web analytics guru at Chicago's Leo Burnett ad agency, has created 24 charts that break down everything we currently know about guns in the U.S.

Much of the data is from the last decade — but again, that's a reflection of the absence of new information currently available.

Something changed last year.


Americans have realized the U.S. is an outlier — our rate of firearm possession dwarfs that of other countries.


Guns are cheaper here.


By any measure, gun-related incidents in the U.S. are literally popping off the charts.



Frighteningly, it used to be even worse.

[redgreenandblue]

1. Fig 4, bottom right graph: "More guns does not necessarily lead to more intentional homicides."

The correlation, if there is one at all, is extremely weak.

[tk2kewl]

5. i would strongly disagree that the correlation is week.

the charts dont show a regression line but if you were to throw out the 2 outliers... one being the US and one unknown - it looks like you could draw a line right through the middle of the rest of those dots that has a distinctly upward slope.

But I guess you did the actual regression analysis and came up with that conclusion

[redgreenandblue]

6. I didn't do the fit. I don't have the data.

Are you sure we are looking at the same chart? The one that plots "average firearms per 100 people" vs "intentional homicides per 100k people"?

Just eyeballing it, it seems like there may be a slight upward slope, which is driven by the third uppermost datapoint. Without that one perhaps downward. I would bet that a linear regression (with or without outliers) would yield an errorbar on the linear coefficient such that the sign is uncertain.

But hey, it would be easy to find out if the data could be obtained.

[tk2kewl]

7. the one in the bottom right corner... right?

[redgreenandblue]

8. Yes, bottom right. Now for the top right I would agree there is a distinct upward trend.

[tk2kewl]

10. my eye sees about a 20 deg upward slope on the bottom right chart

i guess if we really wanted to we could get a hold of the raw data

[hack89]

11. Here is the raw data

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[tk2kewl]

12. so now I need to get my old textbooks out of the attic?

[redgreenandblue]

13. If you can find the actual data set on that site I can do the fit.

There is a lot of stuff on there. where can I find that specific data set?

[tk2kewl]

14. is this it?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[redgreenandblue]

16. I can't find the data there. In any case, I have done this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022195890

[redgreenandblue]

2. Plot I'd like to see: Intentional homicide rate vs. standard deviation of household income.

I bet there is a correlation between social gap and homicide rate.

[redgreenandblue]

3. Recced for objectivity and math.

[Victor_c3]

4. They compare the wealthy nations, but I'd like to see them throw in nations like Iraq, Uganda,...

I use in my personal arguments that nations like Iraq and Afghanistan people have nearly unlimited access to military grade weapons. Those places certainly aren't any safer as a result. When I was in Iraq in 2004, the police were so concerned about their own safety that many/most crimes went unchallenged by them. Hell, police stations were getting stormed by insurgents, their entire on-duty staff would get slaughtered, then they'd blow up the building. This happened numerous times when I was in Iraq in 2004.

A lot of the proliferation of military grade weapons was bush's fault. He disbanded the military and left their weapons and stockpiles unguarded for long enough for them to be entirely looted.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. And in response, you'll get some clap-trap comparing guns to hammers or cars.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

[Tsiyu]

15. But if YOU bring up cars or hammers they'll just say the

Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to a car or a hammer.

Their "right" is their infinite entitlement, their no-holds-barred religion.

Using their logic, my right to vote should be limitless. Since the Constitution guarantees my right to vote, there should be no restrictions on my voting. I should be able to vote as often as I like, wherever I like. It's my RIGHT, dammit!

I should be able to go into the closest courtroom and stage a protest while court is in session, with big siigns and screaming and chanting. No contempt of court for ME! I have a RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH and don't you DARE infringe it or restrict it!