this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
211 points (99.1% liked)

Mildly Interesting

21570 readers
208 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Source: OAG Data

Interesting that California's was higher than Florida/Texas until 2007 and 2015.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Now go compare overall homicide rates, without limiting it to gun usage

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago

Well, fewer Floridians and Texans is all right with me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What did CA do between 2006-07?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Come with me if you want to live on a state wide level?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Damn, that 2020 spike really tells a whole other tragic story of its own.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago
[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Some thoughts:

  • Florida had a striking increase between 2003 and 2008 that isn’t reflected by California or Texas. Did something specific happen in Florida in that timeframe?

  • Texas seems to have been on a long-term downward trend until 2013 (while Florida was spiking). The subsequent upward trend is mirrored by Florida, but not California.

  • What does “age-adjusted” mean?

  • Does “per 100,000” refer to the entire population, or the population under 25? If the former, could some of the differences be accounted for by changing demographics?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

2005 would have been when Stand Your Ground was implemented, other than that I'm not sure — could be related to the housing crisis as well.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Does “per 100,000” refer to the entire population, or the population under 25? If the former, could some of the differences be accounted for by changing demographics?

That’s what age-adjustment prevents.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So if I understand that right, the “per 100,000” figures aren’t for the exact populations, but for what the populations would be if the age groups were re-weighted to keep the age demographics constant?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Right, it imposes the collected data on a chosen model population. I wish it told you what that population was, but I don’t see it.