Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 10:07 AM Apr 2014

How to Mislead With Charts: Stand Your Ground Laws and Gun Deaths in Florida

[center][/center]

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 that’s 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 right—flipped both horizontally and vertically—is 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/
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How to Mislead With Charts: Stand Your Ground Laws and Gun Deaths in Florida (Original Post) SecularMotion Apr 2014 OP
did the suicide rate go up? gejohnston Apr 2014 #1
Why would the FL Dept of Law Enforcement issue such a misleading chart? SecularMotion Apr 2014 #3
did FDLE issue the chart? gejohnston Apr 2014 #5
So the FL Dept of Law Enforcement was only the source of statistics SecularMotion Apr 2014 #7
the Mirror in the UK? gejohnston Apr 2014 #8
RW sources are acceptable for SecMo's use, but not for the likes of us friendly_iconoclast Apr 2014 #14
I don't think they did. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2014 #6
Was there something you wanted to discuss? (NT) blueridge3210 Apr 2014 #2
It's definitely odd. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2014 #4
I used to work in statistics procon Apr 2014 #9
I know I've posted this a couple times before, Bazinga Apr 2014 #10
So, a chart created from data not clearly delineated, and attributed to Who Gots, Ph D.? Eleanors38 Apr 2014 #11
I'm not sure that an instructional video of this nature fits the SOP. beevul Apr 2014 #12
So it's murders with firearms, not "gun deaths". krispos42 Apr 2014 #13

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
1. did the suicide rate go up?
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 10:17 AM
Apr 2014

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.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
5. did FDLE issue the chart?
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 10:29 AM
Apr 2014

they didn't. They provided the raw information for the chart. The writer created the misleading chart.

 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
7. So the FL Dept of Law Enforcement was only the source of statistics
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 10:35 AM
Apr 2014

Then the question is why would Reuters publish such a misleading chart?

Business Insider got it right

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
6. I don't think they did.
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 10:30 AM
Apr 2014

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.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
4. It's definitely odd.
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 10:28 AM
Apr 2014

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)
9. I used to work in statistics
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 10:45 AM
Apr 2014

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)
10. I know I've posted this a couple times before,
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 11:33 AM
Apr 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129191

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.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
12. I'm not sure that an instructional video of this nature fits the SOP.
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 02:48 PM
Apr 2014

I'm not sure that an instructional video of this nature fits the SOP.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
13. So it's murders with firearms, not "gun deaths".
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 02:59 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»How to Mislead With Chart...