this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
1055 points (97.1% liked)

Data is Beautiful

4923 readers
302 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 80 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I agree with the point this is trying to make, but I don't think it does its job.

Like, the whole argument from the 'good guy with a gun' crowd is about stopping them early. You'd need to cross reference each of these catagories with 'how many people did the mass shooter kill'. And, this would really only be a strong argument vs the 'good guy with a gun' point if the 'shot by bystander' result had no fewer average deaths.

Additionally, it's easy to clap back with 'well, yeah, our society doesn't have enough "good people" trained with guns, that's why it's only 5%!'

Again, I don't agree with those points, it's just that this chart is pretty bad at presenting an argument against them.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Also, the data needs to include how many people are accidentally shot by guns through improper usage and storage.

From the numbers I have seen, far more children are killed accidentally by good-guy-guns then they are saved by those very same guns

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We need good kids with guns to shoot the bad kids with guns!?

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 months ago

we need good kids with guns to shoot the neutral kids with guns who might take someone else out when they shoot themselves.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think they take away your good-guy card before that happens

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Ah, the classic no true good guy fallacy.

[–] Kroxx@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

You should see the data for people improperly using cars or medications or alcohol. Pretty scary stuff, I think everything should be illegal.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

it's easy to clap back with 'well, yeah, our society doesn't have enough "good people" trained with guns, that's why it's only 5%!'

I agree. It's pathetic how shit arguments that make no actual sense are allowed to fly by millions of people.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Cause many people don't want their beliefs challenged. They want to live without accepting facts, or even regardless of facts.

[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Its the culture war mentality.

"Our idea would work, if the damn Wokes didn't stop us all from having guns at all times!"

Its always the reason why 'their ideas don't work'; cause their opponents aren't 'letting them'

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The other problem with the "good guy with a gun" is how many people does an attacker need to kill before you are the good guy killing the bad guy? One? And what if you didn't witness it? The "good guy" with the gun attacking another guy with a gun without knowing what's going on, are they still the "good guy" in that scenario? It's a mess.

The whole thing stems from fallacious logic. Arming everyone doesn't stop bad guys murdering people, at best it might curtail the length of some attacks and at worst it causes innocents to die as so-called "good guys" try to save the day and make it worse.

Prevention is the way forward, as then 0 people die. And the best way to do that is no one has guns (not even most police; just a small subset of specialist police). That is an anathema or sacrilegious to Americans, but it's the approach taken in many democratic and free countries in the world.

If the chart is trying to make a point, it's making the wrong one anyway.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would also zoom in on the suicide of the attacker.

That's some wild stuff to show these people needed help loooong before they did this.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Homicidal ideation does not always equate to wanting to live with having killed someone, and a lot of these people are closer to normal than they realize until they are facing potential consequences for their actions. I would posit that killing oneself after doing something so heinous is one of the saner outcomes.

A lot of people experience "fucked around, found out" immediately or shortly after they cross a line, before anyone else has a chance to tell them they fucked up.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah I can see that too. It's a shame the US government banned research into firearm violence by the CDC.

[–] at_an_angle@lemmy.one -2 points 2 months ago

How many people does the attacker need to kill? Ideally, none. If an attacker is attempting to kill someone and that person is killed instead of the potential victim, good.

If I'm out and someone tries to attack me, I'm pulling out my pistol and ending it right there. I'm not trying to be a "good guy with a gun," I'm just carrying to protect myself.

and zero people die Are you dense? Murder will still happen because people have been killing people before guns. You're also gonna take guns away from law-abiding people like me who love going out on the weekends to shoot with their buddies or hunt and leave nothing but criminals with guns? Dumb.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a 'good guy with a gun' stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.

This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it's needed for that case.

[–] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

That is covered in this graphic as subdued by bystander, it’s a small amount and they include cases where people didn’t subdue with gun.

They don’t stop a shorter before it happens. It’s not a scenario that exists. If you shoot someone before they draw their weapon to shoot, your the active shooter.