Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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