HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Two U.S. graphs.
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:14 PM

Two U.S. graphs.

Courtesy the Childrens Defense Fund:



26 replies, 1556 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Two U.S. graphs. (Original post)
Robb Dec 2012 OP
bossy22 Dec 2012 #1
NoOneMan Dec 2012 #3
Robb Dec 2012 #4
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #5
Robb Dec 2012 #7
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #10
Robb Dec 2012 #14
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #16
Robb Dec 2012 #21
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #23
Robb Dec 2012 #6
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #12
Robb Dec 2012 #13
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #19
Robb Dec 2012 #20
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #25
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #8
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #9
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #11
Robb Dec 2012 #15
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #17
Robb Dec 2012 #22
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #24
spanone Dec 2012 #26
byeya Dec 2012 #2
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #18

Response to Robb (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:20 PM

1. misleading

Whats the definition of children/teen? (think its stupid- some stats consider 25 year olds in that catagory)

Also it so happens that the majority of gang members and criminals are males in their 16-25 year range. Remember correlation does not equal causation

I'm sorry, such examples piss me off. I consider them an insult to my intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:32 PM

3. Children dying of gang-related, gun violence shouldn't be considered?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:35 PM

4. Well, you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:35 PM

5. I'm with you

My criticism was that the comparisons were not on the same scale. This could have been done more effectively, but would perhaps tell a different story.

There are valid arguments to be made, but they are not made in these graphs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:37 PM

7. Two stories. Two graphs.

Putting one in scale with the other? Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:48 AM

10. Because that is how graphs work.

Their purpose is to reflect numbers visually. If they are out-of -proportion and not meaningfully related, they are at best confusing, and at worst misleading. The end result is that it does more to discredit a valid argument than it does to further it..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:23 AM

14. Bullshit. Both graphs are in proportion.

There is no distortion.

Your problem is you don't care for what they say.

Ignore one graph, or ignore the other. Can you meaningfully comment on the numbers either one presents? Or would you prefer to pretend your sensibilies about graphing are so offended that you're too rattled to even consider them?

Can you dig deep?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:41 PM

16. If you wish to compare apples to oranges they are awesome.

I am for gun control and don't own guns. Your assessment of my non-existent "problem" is incorrect.

I could meaningfully comment if the graphs were to a common scale. They aren't. How many deaths per year in Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? U.S. Schools? How many years would it take to fill that stadium? Answer those questions and your 1st graph might have some useful meaning.

As far as the second graph, comparing 23 years of shootings vs 86 years of lynchings is meaningful, why exactly?

Why were the specific year ranges selected? That seems arbitrary at best.

Give me real information and real comparable data. Otherwise all you are giving me is propaganda and it hurts your case.

Please don't confuse the inability of the graphs to provide useful comparative information with me being "rattled" or "offended". I actually support what the graph is trying to argue. It simply does it incorrectly and ineffectively.

If you would like to be civil and discuss this further, I am will to continue. If you insist on attacking me over the ineffectiveness of the graphs you provided, then we are done.

TTFN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:38 PM

21. Careful, you might hurt my internet feelings.

Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:15 PM

23. What?

you called me "rattled" and "offended." What did I say that was intended to hurt your feelings and how was it pathetic?

I am simply explain to you why your graphs are ineffective and harmful to a cause you and I both support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:36 PM

6. Show me one study that calls 25 year-olds "teens."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:23 AM

12. Lots to be found at the Brady/VPC site.

However, the cutoff may be 24 instead of 25 and they may be called "children" instead of "teens".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:19 AM

13. Show me one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 02:22 PM

19. Do your own homework.

If you don't want to search the Brady/VPC site(s), search here at DU. They get posted enough times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:36 PM

20. You made the claim. Clearly an untrue one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:47 PM

25. Whether or not you choose to believe them,

the facts remain the facts. You asked a technical question. You were given the correct answer. If you want more details look up the data for yourself. It is readily available at multiple sites including here at DU, although you might need to go to DU2 to get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:40 PM

8. So knock the top 40% off and it's still a fucking horror show.

 

People who point at small (and oftimes imagined) flaws as reason to ignore anything remotely associated with that flaw are an insult to my intelligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:16 PM

9. 0-19. And your post is massively racist.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf

Protect Children, Not Guns 2012 analyzes the latest fatal and nonfatal firearm injury data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2008 and 2009 for children and teens ages 0-19.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:57 AM

11. I think it's misleading, too. Or doesn't represent what it intends to.

There's no correlation between US troops and kids. There are many more kids than troops, and some troops are not in combat roles. So it's reasonable to assume that there would be more kids dying of various causes than the troops, no matter the cause. There were probably many more kids than troops who died of cancer, for example.

And comparing the deaths of blacks by guns with lynchings is like comparing apples and oranges. I guess the graph is meant to say that if you are outraged by lynchings, then you should be equally outraged by deaths by gun. Fair enough. But the lynchings were by certain people for a certain reason, and that's a big part of that outrage. The gun deaths may result from other blacks killing blacks, or other races killing blacks for reasons other than race. So you wouldn't necessarily get the same kind of outrage. If two guys are drunk and fighting and one kills another with a gun, well, that's not quite the same thing as a lynching of an innocent stranger by the KKK because he's black.

There are better graphs out there to show gun violence, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 08:30 AM

15. It makes a similar, if opposite, argument to that made about cars.

Noting the number killed in car accidents is an argument designed to desensitize you to the deaths. This is a similar number-based argument designed to make you feel those deaths more acutely.

And no, it's "not quite the same." No one ever said they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:42 PM

17. So the car graphs are valid?

I thought those were as apples/oranges as these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 03:41 PM

22. Who are you talking to?

What car graphs? I think you've got me confused with someone else.

Or perhaps it seems everyone is out to get you? That's actually treatable if so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:21 PM

24. You. Do you read your own subject lines?

Your subject line read It makes a similar, if opposite, argument to that made about cars.

You have called me "rattled" and "offended." However, I am not the one forgetting what they posted and managing to find outrage over it.

I recommend taking a deep breath. You meant well. It's not your fault that the graphs are ineffective. No one is attacking you. You have no reason to be this outraged over simple constructive criticism. Please calm down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bossy22 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 10:00 PM

26. your defense pisses me off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:29 PM

2. Thanks for the graphs - very enlightening and puts the carnage into perspective.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:49 PM

18. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Robb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread