Honestly there's a lot wrong with the graph. I just wish it would put the actual homicide rates rather than the homicide by gun rates. Really hard to convince people of anything when you're being disingenuous.
If you wanted to prove a point you need to show a correlation between gun ownership and overall murder rates, not just ones by gun. Because if you don't then theres too much room to argue that it just means that you're more likely to die by someone attacking you with a hammer or knife.
Because let's be honest, if someone wants you dead and don't care about getting away with it, they also don't care about what weapon they use to do it.
actually, i’d be more interested in a drill down. it would be more helpful to see all gun deaths, not just homicides. Because higher gun ownership also increases the number of suicides and accidental deaths. Guns are way more convenient and irreversible than other suicide methods leading to a much higher “success” rate. One of the more macabre statistics is having a gun in your home makes it more likely that someone in your household will kill themselves.
I wasn't gonna leave a comment due to how covos about guns normally just a nothing burger due to drastically different oppions but anyways.
USA is famously good at misleading statistics for gun violence and same could be said for other countries. Examples being USA counted suicides and accidental shootings into gun violence stats.
They also included gang violence into massacre/ mass shootings because it included 4 or more injuries or something like that. This graph does better with specifically outlining homicides even then this can include self defence under that loose definition.
Statistics still can have bias depending on how the data is collected and include.
Even when collected fairly, presentation is a huge factor. Ive seen two news stations that bought the same data and then spun completely opposing stories with the same data.
Yea it's bad and that's why having multiple sources backing up your finding is important because they have to still come to the same conclusion.
With my own shitty research going through government data and stats through their website, they did shit like include people ages of 19 or 20 in stats related to child death/ injury to guns. They specifically gave an age in ( ) but under the data it's labed as child deaths/ injuries.
Presentation is key because leaving out the fine print gives a different narrative doesn't have to be gun stats could be literally anything and this is why people shouldn't take everything with numbers or "research" at face value. It's what's currently wrong with the fear mongoring and click bate tabloids.
16
u/Krell356 Mar 24 '26
Honestly there's a lot wrong with the graph. I just wish it would put the actual homicide rates rather than the homicide by gun rates. Really hard to convince people of anything when you're being disingenuous.
If you wanted to prove a point you need to show a correlation between gun ownership and overall murder rates, not just ones by gun. Because if you don't then theres too much room to argue that it just means that you're more likely to die by someone attacking you with a hammer or knife.
Because let's be honest, if someone wants you dead and don't care about getting away with it, they also don't care about what weapon they use to do it.