Two U.S. graphs.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I think it's misleading, too. Or doesn't represent what it intends to.

There's no correlation between US troops and kids. There are many more kids than troops, and some troops are not in combat roles. So it's reasonable to assume that there would be more kids dying of various causes than the troops, no matter the cause. There were probably many more kids than troops who died of cancer, for example.

And comparing the deaths of blacks by guns with lynchings is like comparing apples and oranges. I guess the graph is meant to say that if you are outraged by lynchings, then you should be equally outraged by deaths by gun. Fair enough. But the lynchings were by certain people for a certain reason, and that's a big part of that outrage. The gun deaths may result from other blacks killing blacks, or other races killing blacks for reasons other than race. So you wouldn't necessarily get the same kind of outrage. If two guys are drunk and fighting and one kills another with a gun, well, that's not quite the same thing as a lynching of an innocent stranger by the KKK because he's black.

There are better graphs out there to show gun violence, though.