Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Soonerpalmetto88 t1_j8zr4sh wrote

Where is the US? I didn't find us.

98

Spkr_Freekr t1_j8zradf wrote

Right? How is it even relevant without the US?

57

Soonerpalmetto88 t1_j8zrh10 wrote

I'm not trying to say every statistic has to include the US I'm just saying we have a horrible gun violence problem and it would be nice to see where we stand with these other countries. This statistic in particular is especially relevant.

68

Competitive-Bit5659 t1_j8zsyz0 wrote

OP posted the source — the US is that final data point. Not every country is labeled. If you look at the very right, you see Yemen labeled. Yemen is third highest gun ownership. Serbia and then the US are the next two (unlabeled) data points.

20

leigh094 t1_j8ztust wrote

I get it cuz it would be really crowded but it seems really unhelpful not it label every point on a non continuous scale. Also, some point of time reference would be really helpful

17

[deleted] t1_j8zw0im wrote

thats because it looks like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg

still a supporter of the 2nd amendment though

5

Soonerpalmetto88 t1_j8zw5ye wrote

Doesn't the graph from op show all homicides though, not just fun related?

4

[deleted] t1_j8zwcjg wrote

yes his graph is different , was providing a graph based on criteria you were looking for.

1

arenalr t1_j9050jf wrote

Me too, that chart when broken down shows some pretty interesting info. Germany for example has quite a high percent of gun owners (30 per 100 inhabitants) with an extremely low homicide rate (0.06 per 100k). It's the 6th most armed country with 12th lowest homicide rate. What's the difference? No fucking clue tbh but I wonder... Similar situation in Switzerland, similarly armed and minus the US it's considered quite high compared to the rest of the world (with easy access to semi and full auto guns) but a very low homicide rate. Hell, if you look at most of the highest armed countries, the top 10 is almost entirely developed countries that happen to also have significantly lower homicide rates. Is gang violence in the US the difference then? Mass shootings too? Honestly pretty surprised by this data

1

[deleted] t1_j90bild wrote

I think its because mental health in America is pretty terrible. If you notice on that web page that photo is from we have the highest suicide rate than any other country on that list (out of 70+ countries). Also highest reported crime rates and least solved crime rates as well from other studies

1

Clarksp2 t1_j8zs2d3 wrote

US overall would be hard though, since each state has its own gun laws. Some states with the strictest laws have the highest murder rates with firearms, or others have open carry and you see uptick from that as well (any death, in defense or not is considered homicide)

−2

22marks t1_j8zytpb wrote

Many states have higher populations than countries listed. Iceland only has 375,000 people. It wouldn't even be one of the United State's Top 50 cities. They should do a state breakdown.

1

Clarksp2 t1_j900vw6 wrote

Yeah not sure why I was downvoted for saying US is complex enough to not be included in the above graphic and would indeed need its own breakdown

2

_DarkWingDuck t1_j905jty wrote

Problem with states strict gun laws have bordering states with lax laws. A federal needs to be implemented at some rate. Hard to argue against in my opinion.

1

technicolordreams t1_j902sp7 wrote

I’m wondering if this post is a bait and switch like if you included America you just wouldn’t be able to see the other countries.

1

Dull-Hovercraft-409 t1_j8zw7eh wrote

Lol… that was the whole point. Hoping you would not notice that the sample was biased.

1

blizzard36 OP t1_j8zrgfl wrote

That big spike in firearm availability at the end. I was tempted to number the countries and leave them anonymous, but that was just as cluttered.

Not being able to figure out a way to pick which countries I wanted to call out, while still leaving all the data points in, was my primary frustration working on this tonight. But I haven't done one of these in about 8 years.

−5

moondog548 t1_j8zs698 wrote

So only every other country in the graph is labeled?

A line graph is not appropriate for this at all. There's nothing to interpolate "between" countries.

24

blizzard36 OP t1_j8zt2pz wrote

I think it's actually every 3rd.

I honestly prefer the raw data tables, much easier to sort. But this format does show the gap at the end well.

−2

surelythisisfree t1_j8zt4n6 wrote

This data representation is not beautiful. It’s the complete wrong kind of graph for representing information like this.

78

jankyj t1_j8zvcbw wrote

Why is this plotted as a line chart??

49

agnishom t1_j8zsa7p wrote

They should have been a scatter plot with two axes

35

PredictorX1 t1_j8zrzyl wrote

Is "homicide rate" specific to firearm homicides?

18

blizzard36 OP t1_j8zsfnx wrote

Should be any reported homicide.

−3

blueranger36 t1_j8zssz9 wrote

Also is this per 100k residents? There’s not enough information here to come to any kind of conclusion.

14

blizzard36 OP t1_j8ztqlt wrote

>is this per 100k residents

Yes, it's a source link from the data table referenced.

​

>There’s not enough information here to come to any kind of conclusion.

A clear read I took was a drop in homicide rate once the availability of firearms gets near 20%. It bounces up and down to greater extremes until then.

−5

matt7810 t1_j903oye wrote

You should still label the axes, most people won't read the source.

2

Legendary_Lamb2020 t1_j8zubau wrote

How does a country have higher than 100% ownership? No sources sited. I think this is mostly fabricated.

10

OneGuyJeff t1_j8zv60m wrote

OP fucked that up too, that should be # of guns per 100 residents.

3

csjerk t1_j8zx3nn wrote

I'm more curious how that country around Kenya has a 90% homicide rate...

3

[deleted] t1_j900a4z wrote

I think so too, I'm not sure where the points on the graphs are , it seems that it randomly goes up and down in between the names of countries. For example if you look in between Eritrea and Singapore it is a zig zag between two data points what do all the values in between those two countries mean? For some of these countries I can't even tell if the homicide rate is higher or lower than the country next to it because I have no idea where the data points are.

but assuming the data is actually real , it doesn't look like gun ownership and homicide rate is correlated at all. Just because it is low for the last 5 out of 50 countries on the list even though it was randomly moving up and down for the last 45 countries before that. I would like to see all the countries in the world on one chart as well as a another graph that is ordered by homicide rate.

decent graph overall though

1

blizzard36 OP t1_j8zw2vb wrote

The USA is estimated to have more firearms in private hands than it has citizens. (Mostly because the average firearm owner has at least 4.) That's how.

0

VWMat t1_j8zxvsu wrote

The omit of the US in this is kinda nuts. I hunt, have a concealed carry permit for my state, and own 15 guns. But then there’s the angry 18 year old that acquires a gun. This chart is as bad as our gun laws. Please regulate and overhaul both.

5

borkbubble t1_j908bhw wrote

It’s the big spike at the very end, he didn’t label it for whatever reason

1

KlownPuree t1_j8ztthu wrote

Can you cite your data source(s)?

4

FamousConcert1220 t1_j8zukrt wrote

I'm curious where the "firearm %" data is sourced? Is that officially registered firearm ownership?

3

ThisGuyCrohns t1_j8zy1eu wrote

Sounds like something the NRA would say.

3

stataryus t1_j8zunjt wrote

(1) Many countries have near zero with a sixth or less of the US’s guns.

(2) What about accidental gun deaths?

2

GaslightingGreenbean t1_j8zyuwv wrote

I always never seen the point in banning guns from the general population. It just never made sense to me.

2

Aggravating-Score146 t1_j904oe5 wrote

Am I the only one who feels like the average post quality has been suffering for a while?

2

polomarkopolo t1_j8zvuvi wrote

I refuse to believe that the DNC’s rate is that low

1

bob-theknob t1_j8zxxsl wrote

Use a scatter chart. Having the name of the country on the x axis isn’t great. It doesn’t show the relationship (or lack of one) between the firearm rate and homicide rate effectively

1

rarebluemonkey t1_j900wqk wrote

These data are not beautiful IMO. This is confusing.

1

verhegja t1_j900xj5 wrote

They left Switzerland out too, where everyone is required to be trained in firearms and serve in the military in order to gain full citizenship. Selective data in the graph.

1

fourdoorshack t1_j901n62 wrote

would the US skew the data too much?

1

psps1998 t1_j9048q9 wrote

why is more than half of the data on this sub so poorly displayed

1

yourmamaman t1_j904sdo wrote

Most I can get from this is that its' probably not the amount of guns you allow your people to have but who you allow to have them, or what culture/training you have around guns.

But without the US being in this chart it feels intentionally misleading.

1

kmckenzie256 t1_j9060rw wrote

How could you possibly know what North Korea’s homicide rate is

1

pausosaure t1_j906lyh wrote

Completely misleading. I take yemen as an exemple :it s civil war there, homicide rate eeported here correspond to 1000 death per year while actually it's at least 10x more.... The list in this data is mixed country in civil war or at peace, gun owned by armies or citizen or criminal gangs, homicide count with completely different statistics country to country...

-> bad source , bad message, not beautiful data

1

Chillypill t1_j906xvf wrote

Weird way to display data. Why not just do a scatterplot with a trendline? Also a lot of countries missing.

1

toyrobotics t1_j90rg4t wrote

On the x-axis, the furthest left country names are Tunisia and Ghana. But the red line appears to show four data points in the same space. I believe this is because your chart configuration automatically omitted every other name due to overcrowding of the labels on the x-axis. If I’m right, that means you have unlabeled data points.

Also, you have sorted according to one value (gun count — per capita?). But a scatter plot seems like a better way to show the (purported?) lack of correlation.

1

TargetMost8136 t1_j8zuob7 wrote

So you’re comparing the US to a bunch of African countries

0

2_stanley_nickels t1_j8zzucn wrote

This data is not beautiful. How is this a line graph??

0

MelbQueermosexual t1_j900fzs wrote

This is shit. Where is each countries firearm availability is it the peak of the trough?

Couldn't have made it shitter to read.

0

minionsmimi t1_j8zux4u wrote

It's not exactly pretty, which you freely admit. But you did a very good job laying out the information. You see the most relevant countries data while the lesser known are not labeled. It still gives you the overall data. You did a very good job on it. It clearly shows that countries with more access to guns readily are more likely to have mass violence essentially. Also to what extent compared to gun availability.

−2

borkbubble t1_j908sk9 wrote

It does not show that countries with more gun access have more mass violence

1

blizzard36 OP t1_j8zqorq wrote

Data from wikipedia, after prompting from u/RobinVanPersi3.

I freely acknowledge the chart isn't pretty, it has been a long time since I spent much time in the MS Office suite and don't know any other tools. But this was the easiest way to get it done and up.

−4

smellytwoshoes t1_j8zspal wrote

Something is not right—your red line keeps hitting the x-axis, producing a lot of zeros.

9

blizzard36 OP t1_j8ztztw wrote

17 datapoints are below 1. With high numbers around 100 showing those small points get real close to 0.

2

minionsmimi t1_j8zuh3s wrote

No it's for the countries with almost 0% gun availability that it's on the X. Learn to read the legend at the bottom of the graph. Yes, it's cluttered but I had no problem understanding the data.

0

toyrobotics t1_j90qjdw wrote

That’s not correct according to the legend.

The red line is homicide rate.

The blue line is guns (per 100k people?)

1

minionsmimi t1_j92dbhe wrote

gun violence per 100k 2019 statistics

Even this site has many countries at 0 because of the fact that the amount of guns per deaths is literally at less than 1%. They do this by rounding the average and until it gets to a significant amount past 0% it still gets plotted as close to 0 as possible.

It makes sense and OP's graph is accurate. Learn to read a graph. I picked 1 line that went to 0 because it was the easiest way to show that while those countries did not actually have truly 0 guns per homicide rates it's just that the guns are less than a significant percentage to really make a visible difference on the graph.

1

smellytwoshoes t1_j92i9hq wrote

I see what you mean, but there are a couple “design taboos” here that would never fly if you do data visualization. The red dots are connected, which is a problem when you don’t label all the countries (I can see bends to zero in between, which suggests missing labels of countries. If the line was unconnected and became dots, we would have a scatter plot which would help us identify the issues in the x axis. The red line is hiding the x-axis missing countries, which was my point, not that a line can’t go to zero but that it did go down to zero so many times. Now a more speculative issue: if it keeps going to near 0, as a data analyst you would want to know about these instances (even if they were 1, or just under 1), since they might point to inconsistent data collection and data quality processes by each country.

1

MagnetWasp t1_j8zvbdc wrote

So your source is a Wikipedia article that has a warning at the top about itself having no sources?

Seems like useful data.

3

pausosaure t1_j906ww7 wrote

The graph is certainly correct, but the source data is à ridiculous aggregate, notably because the definition of intentional homicide widely varies from country to country.. see my other message for more details

1

evidica t1_j8ztgrv wrote

It's almost as if when people are armed, they're less likely to be murdered.

−5

MadcapHaskap t1_j8ztsoy wrote

Nope, it's actually the data that when people have guns, the overall murder rate doesn't really change.

4

evidica t1_j8ztzlj wrote

Looks like arming at least 20% of your population is enough to end a lot of senseless death, but I'm just looking at the data here.

0

MadcapHaskap t1_j8zuo5t wrote

You should use all the data then, rather than cherry picking a subsample.

0

HijacksMissiles t1_j8zv537 wrote

I think the clear conclusion from using all the data is that increased availability of firearms does not increase homicide.

Contrary to all the "common sense" arguments circulating on the subject.

(Provided we accept the source data as true)

2

MadcapHaskap t1_j8zviiy wrote

I'm not aware of any common sense arguments to the contrary. Gun ownership rates and murder rates are uncorrelated, as you'd expect.

3

HijacksMissiles t1_j8zvyan wrote

You wouldn't believe how many facebook meme level arguments I've seen asserting the opposite.

1

evidica t1_j8zv2px wrote

What data am I missing here? Where's a country with high gun ownership and high intentional homicide?

1

OneGuyJeff t1_j8zwigs wrote

At best you can say from this (poorly made) graph is that # of guns is not the only factor in homicide. This proves nothing about gun ownership bringing down homicide. The truth is all countries are different, and they all have different factors that can raise or lower homicide rates.

1

evidica t1_j8zylix wrote

That's fair, also proves the existence of guns doesn't increase homicide either.

3