Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHow to Mislead With Charts: Stand Your Ground Laws and Gun Deaths in Florida
The original figure is on the left. It counts the number of gun deaths in Florida. A line rises, bounces a little, reaches a second highest peak labeled 2005, Florida enacted its Stand Your Ground law, and falls precipitously.
What do you see?
Most people see a huge fall-off in the number of gun deaths after Stand Your Ground was passed. But thats not what the graph shows. A quick look at the vertical axis reveals that the gun deaths are counted from top (0) to bottom (800). The highest peaks are the fewest gun deaths and the lowest ones are the most. A rise in the line, in other words, reveals a reduction in gun deaths. The graph on the rightflipped both horizontally and verticallyis more intuitive to most: A rising line reflects a rise in the number of gun deaths and a dropping a drop.
The proper conclusion, then, is that gun deaths skyrocketed after Stand Your Ground was enacted.
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/mislead-charts-stand-ground-laws-gun-deaths-79726/
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there were not that many self defense cases. Since those are raw numbers, check the rise in Florida's population at the time. Any rise would be likely be legitimate self defense. BTW, the number of justifiable homicides increased among cops, which is not affected by SYG or DTR.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they didn't. They provided the raw information for the chart. The writer created the misleading chart.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Then the question is why would Reuters publish such a misleading chart?
Business Insider got it right
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In their own words:
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=138001
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If you take the link to the original article, there's another link to the chart creator defending the chart choices on Twitter. Her job title listed there shows no connection to FL LEO's. I think 'source' means she took numbers from them to make the chart.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The creator of the chart lists herself as a 'Reuters Asia Financial Graphics' artist on her twitter feed. When I saw the chart, I assumed the 'Source' was the 'Florida Department of Law Enforcement', since that's what it actually says at the bottom of the chart. I guess that means she's claiming she got the numbers she is mapping from that 'source', not that they actually put together the chart.
But not only does a quick glance that mistakes the direction of the axis mislead, but so do her chosen numerical start and end mislead. She only labels the totals at her chosen start and endpoint. So at her arbitrary start year, pre-SYG laws, there were almost 900 gun deaths in Florida (and which is it, gun deaths or murders? The header says one thing, the sub-header another.) and in her 'post-SYG law' endpoint, just over 700. She doesn't bother to label any other point, so if you go away remembering the numbers, you only remember the numbers started high and 'fell' later. If she'd labeled the 2005 point at which SYG was enacted, you'd have seen a number around what, 500? 525? and be able to say to yourself, 'wow, deaths jumped by 200 or so a year after the SYG laws were enacted!' Instead, you're left vaguely recalling 'pre-SYG' high 800s, 'post SYG' low 700s.
procon
(15,805 posts)Most people are visually oriented and expect to see things in a certain order which is generated by a number of preconceived social, cultural, educational and personal factors. Just by rearranging or manipulating the graphics, or even changing something as simple as the colors, the viewer can be led to perceive a totally different impression that favors the messaging of the client.
A good example is FOX where they routinely swap out the numbers on charts to deceive unwary viewers.
Bazinga
(331 posts)But seeing as the topic is misleading statistics regarding SYG in Florida, I thought a reiteration of some of the raw numbers was a propos.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm not sure that an instructional video of this nature fits the SOP.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)So, basically, the chart is saying that all of a sudden, the relatively minute population that legally carries concealed in public (what's that, a couple of percent of the population?) all of a sudden began committing murder (not justifiable homicide, MURDER) at a rate high enough to increase the number of murders with firearms by some 60%? In only two years?
That this fraction of the population, who had been carrying peacefully for years, all of a sudden began shooting random strangers in public because they thought they could get away with it?
It seems unlikely to me, but I know that one side in this debate thinks that CCW permittees are, collectively, Rambo-wanna-bes just itching to kill somebody legally with their big shiny metal penis.