hello-delicious-tea: upworthy: It’s One Of The Craziest…
It’s One Of The Craziest Internet Rumors About Guns. And As It Turns Out, It’s True.
It’s a fact so jaw-dropping it’s unbelievable — people thought it was a crazy Internet rumor until Politifact verified it. But it’s true: More Americans have died just since 1960 from gun incidents — suicides, accidents, and homicides — than died in every war in U.S. history. The deadliest war the U.S. has ever had is the war we waged against ourselves.
Well, shit.
The statistic is true. But the graph is a lie.
People make snap emotional judgments based on a quick glance, and a non-zero-based graph like this is intended to mislead the viewer into thinking the value of the second bar is many times greater than that of the first bar. Which is not the case. So yes, while the actual numbers it shows are correct, the graph itself is intended to create a false impression. Intentionally creating a false impression is lying, even if you accomplish it in a tricksy way using elements that are individually true.
In the grand scheme of things it’s a much smaller problem than having a country of 300 million people awash in a sea of guns, such that the tiny fraction of people who really shouldn’t have them often do. But deception is kind of a hobby of mine, and I’d already looked into these numbers and knew their true relationship, so it jumped out at me.
As a matter of personal philosophy I prefer social justice/public welfare arguments to be made using truth rather than lies. That puts me in a bit of a dilemma when a position I agree with is being advanced using deception.
I strongly favor addressing the wacky imbalance this country has arrived at concerning gun control. (I mean, I believe we should have a lot more of it.) But as a side issue, the deceptive nature of this graph makes me sad.
Reposted from http://lies.tumblr.com/post/42760191129.
Tags: gun control, lying, deception, non-zero-based graphs.
February 10th, 2013 at 10:16 pm
So, redo the graph properly. Big whoop, it still shows the shocking fact that the gun deaths is higher than the war deaths. Most people would think the war deaths are like 100 times greater, so having the bars a similar size is still astounding.
More intersting to me is that they’d cut the gun death stat off at 1960. Why not compare apples to apples?
February 11th, 2013 at 5:07 am
Why include suicide? That is the truly disengenious aspect. Unless your objective is to repeal the second ammendment and confiscate all guns (which it is) then suicide should not be included. Firearm technology predating the writing of the constitution was perfectly adequete to take one’s life
February 11th, 2013 at 8:49 am
I clicked the third link first
It’s One Of The Craziest Internet Rumors About Guns. And As It Turns Out, It’s True.
There the graph starts at zero and displays the data accurately. The other graphs are misleading because people typically take things in at a glance – oh my! that bar is FIVE TIMES the other bar! That the origin of the other graphs isn’t zero is extremely misleading, indeed a little info lie. The top line numbers are accurate, but too many readers will just look at the two shapes and draw the wrong conclusions.
Yes, why not include the gun deaths for the last 237 years? Probably because the data is much more sketchy and the comparison of ‘in the last 47.235 years we had as many gun deaths as the last 237 years! equal! zomg!’ Maybe because it’s a nice roundish number ‘in the last 50 years we’ve had more gun deaths than all the wars we’ve been in for the last 250, combined’ [bumperstickerized]
shcb, why not include suicide? We’re not talking about banning rope, we are talking about limiting unstable people’s access to firearms. We’re talking about making it a bit harder for the next psycho to go bananas to reload his mil spec boomstick and give the good guys a chance to end it (see Giffords, Gabby US Rep AZ). How many times do reasonable folks have to point out that background checks, registration, gun safety, training and safe storage, combined with stiffer penalties for the use or possession of guns by criminals is not tyranny. Saying “Unless your objective is to repeal the second ammendment and confiscate all guns (which it is)” is a ridiculous and unproductive argument from absurdity. We already restrict howitzers, if we add ammo drums and certain bullet sprayers to the restricted pile, then those are restricted. Sounds reasonable to me.
Still waiting for your examples of how your AR-15 saved us all from Tyranny.
February 11th, 2013 at 9:51 am
Why include suicide? With the exception of a handful of cases suicide only kills one person no matter the method or tool. The person breaking the law is the only victim, and there is no punishment possible for that person, he/she is dead. Without punishment a law has no purpose.
“to go bananas to reload his mil spec boomstick and give the good guys a chance to end it (see Giffords, Gabby US Rep AZ).” as I said above, that has no relevance to the suicide issue, a single shot black powder pistol made in 1750 is perfectly capable of performing a suicide. (you just ignored that good point didn’t you?) for those of you that don’t know Enky, he will now defelct the discussion to my poor capitalization and punctuation. Deflect, deflect, deflect, why is suicide included in this comparison? Answer: “…to go bananas to reload his mil spec boomstick and give the good guys a chance to end it (see Giffords, Gabby US Rep AZ).”
“Still waiting for your examples of how your AR-15 saved us all from Tyranny.” You like to play this game of asking a question that isn’t pertinent and then using it over and over again when your opponent won’t play your game or has called you out on the impertinence or both, yet you won’t answer a question that is perfectly logical. Deflect, Deflect, Deflect.
So, why include suicide?
The answer is rhetorical of course, the deception is needed to make an invalid point.
The comparison is silly anyway, two different situations, they aren’t connected in any way.
February 11th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
So suicide by gun is a victimless crime? Not violent or something? I’m really failing to see why this is some big wwnj ‘gotcha!’
One of your linchpin arguments is that the 2nd amendment is a check against tyranny. Thus, it is a fair question to ask how exactly your AR-15 has protected us from tyranny. President Blackenstein isn’t coming for your granpap’s old over under shotgun. But it would be nice if we could at least proceed in the areas we already agree on reasonable policy changes. Frankly I was surprised at how much we could actually agree upon like bkg chks, sentencing, mb ammo clips, registration (oops, asking you to register your gun collection is the rankest of tyranny, or something, mb socialism). Seems like you would rather savage a strawman of your own invention: no one is talking about taking away your guns. Unless they are in the proscribed or reasonably restricted list, then it’s the law. You don’t need a howitzer. If you feel that is unreasonable, then move to Somalia immediately.
No deflection, direct questions. Same old wwnj answers: guns guns guns!
I’m not even for the assault weapons ban renewal per se. Pressing for that as part of these other changes lessens the likelihood of anything positive being done at all. A one inch shorter clip isn’t tyranny.
February 11th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
You are a total ass.
I Said “…suicide only kills one person…The person breaking the law is the only victim” victim=1
You said “So suicide by gun is a victimless crime” victim=0
1 does not equal 0, you can’t even get that right, that one little tiny thing, you can’t even get that right, ass.
Can I give you an example of an AR-15 stopping tyranny? No. Can I give you an example of an M1 stopping tyranny? Yes. And I did. Can I give you an example of a Thompson Contender or a Glock 22, Colt 1911, Winchester Model 70 or 94 or 78, no. IT ISN’T THE FUCKING MODEL OF THE GUN!!!
ass
February 11th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Whenever you lose really, really badly out come the swear words and mashed ALL CAPS FUCKING!!1!!!1!!
Yet, again, you can’t show one example of where your AR-15 has saved us all from Tyranny. But you do have a riot from 70 years ago that changed the course of American history, or something, probably socialism. As if there were no other recourse… I’m willing to bet there were many other ways to avoid a full-on lynching/riot.
Soooo… suicide by gun isn’t a violent crime? Often accompanied by other crimes, facilitated by the gun… but somehow you get to discount all the suicides because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions (which basically boils down to ‘ya’ll’s gunna steal mah guns! flibbertybgibbit!’) So using a gun for suicide means you don’t have to include suicides in the total number of gun deaths? Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds to normal, reasonable people? Sadly, I’m sure you don’t.
Don’t lecture anyone on math when you can’t even put 2+2=4 together.
Up is up.
Reasonable, rational debate with a angry lunatic is not productive.
Funny, but not useful.