this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Data is Beautiful

4836 readers
1 users here now

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the sole aim of this subreddit.

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

  A post must be (or contain) a qualifying data visualization.

  Directly link to the original source article of the visualization
    Original source article doesn't mean the original source image. Link to the full page of the source article as a link-type submission.
    If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]

  [OC] posts must state the data source(s) and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.

  DO NOT claim "[OC]" for diagrams that are not yours.

  All diagrams must have at least one computer generated element.

  No reposts of popular posts within 1 month.

  Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.

  Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).

  Posts involving Personal Data are permissible only on Mondays (ET).

Please read through our FAQ if you are new to posting on DataIsBeautiful. Commenting Rules

Don't be intentionally rude, ever.

Comments should be constructive and related to the visual presented. Special attention is given to root-level comments.

Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed.

Hate Speech and dogwhistling are not tolerated and will result in an immediate ban.

Personal attacks and rabble-rousing will be removed.

Moderators reserve discretion when issuing bans for inappropriate comments. Bans are also subject to you forfeiting all of your comments in this community.

Originally r/DataisBeautiful

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I have a vibe that this is anti gun propaganda.

When in reality if a good person with a gun had have been willing and available early enough the results could be vastly different.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I guess you could technically argue that the linked article promotes an anti-gun stance so it could be labelled propaganda (though I suspect you mean something more specific than just promoting a political stance).

However the graph itself is just the raw data displayed nicely so it's hard to argue that's propaganda or misleading. The graph is a little out of date but you can verify the current data by checking the source listed, the only thing that isn't displayed publicly on that page is the subdivision of the now 27 instances where a bystander shot the attacker. Edit: This does also include knife and gun violence, though.

Your assertion that more guns would make the results "vastly different" isn't based in any evidence, while the counter-argument that stronger gun controls and less gun-centric culture prevents mass shootings can be clearly demonstrated by simply looking at literally any other country. According to Wikipedia there have been only 45 mass shooting deaths (including attackers) in total in the UK this century. When a shooting happens here it's always newsworthy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, genius, it's statistics. Math. You know, the class you slept through in high school? I'll make it simple for you.

Out of 433 shooters:

  • 12 were shot by randos (2.7%)
  • 42 were subdued by randos (9.7%)
  • 38+72= 110 killed themselves (25.4%)

If you want to be purely statistical about it, the murders were 10x more useful at stopping themselves than randos with guns. Which means that according to y'all's logic, the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to wait for him to stop himself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Thanks genius.

Keep me make it simpler back to you.

Maybe if you think real hard you can do more than just read the data.

If more defenders carried defensive weapons the results could be very different.

Don't read into it to hard.. I'm not pro gun. Is simply fact that if a defensive firearm were more available then the numbers would be different.

The fact that I have to explain this... Jeez.. I dunno.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What's funny is that I read "police shot attacker 98 times" as they shot one person 98 times. lol

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

There almost certainly one incident where that happened.

...and sadly, probably one where the person shot wasn't a mass shooter.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Lmao dude same

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And there is going to be many who will say the answer to that is a "Good Cop With a Gun".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun... In an action movie, in real life, there's kinda too much chaos going on for anyone to differentiate between the "bad guy" and the "good guy", or for the "good guy" to know the situation.

I've heard of more times where someone tried to play hero and was gunned down by the police who mistook him for the real shooter than I have any reports of "Hero Gunman slays horrible villain"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Neat! Now do one showing how many bills were proposed to address the issues that cause gun violence, and how many were actually signed into law!

The biggest problem i have with gun violence is that the politicians talk about taking action or protecting our constitutional rights, but can't come to any agreement on anything at all. It's literally their job to negotiate these things.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I took an active shooter training class at our sheriff's dept some years ago. At the end they had a Q&A period, and nearly all the questions were coming from obvious gun owners who just wanted one of the deputies there to give them the ok to shoot during an active shooter event, just some sort of official recognition that they were in the clear to do it. The deputies weren't having any of it and the farthest they would go was, "You do whatever you feel is necessary to stay safe and protect yourself." I'm assuming they couldn't endorse vigilantism or for citizens to be bringing guns into active shooter situations, since even the firearm accuracy of cops is supposedly only ~30%. The people in the crowd kept coming up with ever more wild scenarios, just trying to get somebody to tell them it was ok. "You're telling me, that if there was an active shooter that had your wife and kids hostage, and I'm standing there with a gun, you wouldn't tell me it was ok to take the shot?" was one question I remember a guy asking. It was like, they're obviously not going to tell you what you want to hear, can we move the fuck on?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But that's their dream and soul purpose in life...to shoot a minority bad guy. You can't just dismiss the negligible chance that that gets into that extremely convoluted situation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Watch the bad guy be a white dude, like most of them are

load more comments
view more: next ›