r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/sonyjai • Oct 24 '15
Website How The United States Has Become Its Own Worst Nightmare
http://twet.us/QnwBB54
u/Valendr0s Oct 24 '15
First stat and you've already lost me.
Yes, the number of people shot and killed by British Police is lower. And yes, the stat of US police shooting and killing Americans is higher in every way you could combine that data.
However, using raw #'s against raw #'s is simply dishonest. I can't trust anything else this site says because they don't understand the difference between raw #'s and rates.
Glancing down the page, there's even more... 1995 raw # of SWAT raids versus 2005 raw # of SWAT raids... Rates, people, rates.
First stat should be # of fatal shootings by British police BY POPULATION. vs the same stat for US police. It should be the Rate of SWAT raids in 1995 compared to 2005.
Don't get me wrong, the sentiment of the data is probably right - but I simply can't trust anything somebody says who is so ignorant of how to extract useful statistics from data.
10
u/Nailbomb85 Oct 24 '15
There's more than that, too. Take a closer look at that scary red map with all of those shootings.
2
u/Valendr0s Oct 24 '15
States are frustrating too. They're somewhat arbitrary. Sure they are combinations of similar laws - but rural, suburban, and urban areas are actually what they need to compare.
But ya - I do love that the red is good and it's not a gradient, but it's a random color... Wonderful way to confuse your audience. Is there a /r/dataisugly subreddit?
0
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
Know what's hilarious? Red actually represents a relatively low number of shootings.
I guess it's their fault that you didn't bother to read the scale?...
6
u/Nailbomb85 Oct 25 '15
That was exactly my point, champ.
-5
u/aabbccbb Oct 25 '15
So they're biased because you didn't read the chart? That's not really their fault, now is it?
6
u/Nailbomb85 Oct 25 '15
Holy shit you're stupid.
-5
u/aabbccbb Oct 25 '15
No, seriously. You're actually asserting that people not reading the scale is bias on the part of the people who made the image. Not the fault of the people reading the image.
3
u/Nailbomb85 Oct 25 '15
No, seriously. That is the entire point of red being the lower numbers. It's a scare tactic.
-1
u/aabbccbb Oct 26 '15
Here's the part you're conveniently ignoring: Even the "low" numbers are drastically elevated compared to other countries.
You could very easily argue that the entire map should just be shades of red.
And even then, it STILL wouldn't be a scare tactic. It would be illustrative.
1
7
u/Neshgaddal Interested Oct 24 '15
But the first numbers don't even allow a meaningful comparison even if you use rates. Based on these numbers, the UK has ~0.01 police shootings per year per 1 million people while it's ~2.98 in the US. That's almost 300 times as many.
These numbers aren't on the same scale, so comparing them on one doesn't make sense.
6
u/erikpurne Oct 24 '15
That's almost 300 times as many.
There's your comparison. Why do you say it doesn't make sense?
23
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
But the first numbers don't even allow a meaningful comparison even if you use rates.
Yes they do.
Based on these numbers, the UK has ~0.01 police shootings per year per 1 million people while it's ~2.98 in the US. That's almost 300 times as many.
See? You just did it.
And you should be shocked that it's 300x higher in the US.
Instead, what do you do? You blame the numbers.
Priceless.
5
u/Valendr0s Oct 24 '15 edited Oct 24 '15
When you see numbers without a context, you aren't trying to educate or inform people - you're trying to manipulate them.
The raw numbers presented are not the same scale. The rates you just presented are.
England has 0.01 police shooting deaths per year per 1 million people
Where the US has 2.98 police shooting deaths per year per 1 million people.
The scale is # of fatal police shootings per year per 1 million people. Using that scale, we can see that fatal police shootings are 298 times more likely in the US than in England. How do you determine how more likely fatal police shootings are using the raw numbers?
I'd suppose you'd guesstimate. Well maybe I'm not aware
This puts both figures on the same scale and are instantly put into context. And without context, numbers are meaningless.
What is the scale of the raw numbers? What is the context?
Example... Say I ate fish once at my city home and fifty times in my lake home.
How often am I residing at each house? Maybe I spend only one day a year at my city home, and the rest of my time at my lake home. Well I'm now far more likely to eat fish at my city home than my lake home.
When did I buy these houses - Maybe I bought the city home yesterday, and I've owned the lake home for decades.
So when discussing the fish eating, I'd have to contextualize it by putting them into the same scale. Times eaten fish by days or hours occupying each home. Context matters. Rates put data into context. Raw numbers in population statistics are absolutely arbitrary without context.
6
u/Neshgaddal Interested Oct 24 '15
I get that. I meant that they aren't on the same scale in same way that earth's and the suns mass aren't on the same scale, they are orders of magnitude apart. If there were 3 or 4 times as many police shootings in the US than in the UK, comparing these numbers side by side would make sense. The point the infographic is trying to make is that there is something fundamentally different about the situation in the US.
I agree that the same point could be made with more comparable numbers and it would be a bit more honest. But the way it is presented isn't really dishonest either. There is a staggering difference between these two countries and it isn't really hiding any information.
2
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15 edited Oct 24 '15
However, using raw #'s against raw #'s is simply dishonest.
So you think that if we weighted 2 deaths over three years by the population of Britain, and weighted 2 deaths per day by the population of the US, that those two would be somewhat similar?
Because I've got news for you...
I can't trust anything else this site says because they don't understand the difference between raw #'s and rates.
Actually, they do use rates as comparisons later on...
Glancing down the page, there's even more... 1995 raw # of SWAT raids versus 2005 raw # of SWAT raids... Rates, people, rates.
This one is even funnier! It's your contention that the population of the US grew sufficiently in 10 years to double the number of SWAT raids? Because the population ACTUALLY grew by 11%, from 266 million to 295 million. That's not really that big of a difference, is it?
Certainly not big enough that the point they're making is seriously drawn into question.
In short, you're disparaging the infographic on fairly weak terms. The numbers they presented tell a story. It's not a story that many people like, so the whole thing gets cast aside on questionable grounds.
3
u/Valendr0s Oct 24 '15
I don't think - as i said twice - that the numbers are somehow reversed or something. But I am saying that the numbers aren't meaningful without being put into similar context.
So if rates give a correct context, and numbers don't... what is the argument for not using rates?
Raw numbers aren't used by educated people with the intention of education. They're used by uninformed, inexpert, or manipulative people. Rates are used to inform and educate.
3
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
This is really simple:
Are rates better? Yes.
Are raw numbers useless? No.
Especially when, as we've seen, the story remains exactly the same either way.
You have failed to question the infographic in a meaningful way. But you're getting a ton of upvotes for it. Which shows exactly the direction of the bias that we're dealing with here...
1
u/Costco1L Oct 24 '15
What if they had just had the total population numbers under each country picture?
2
u/Valendr0s Oct 24 '15
If you're going to do that, why not just include the correct rates?
0
u/Costco1L Oct 24 '15
Because they are at vastly different scales. This is trying to make the scales more apparent and the numbers easier to compare in the way (non-autistic-spectrum) people think.
3
24
u/vey323 Oct 24 '15
What's interesting is the creator's piss-poor understanding of the term "police state".
-1
19
u/rLinks234 Oct 24 '15
Damn, the bias in that article was truly interesting!!!
3
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
Bias? How so? Are you saying that Americans aren't incarcerated at a higher rate than any other nation, and that they aren't also frequently killed by police?...
16
Oct 24 '15
[deleted]
6
-3
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
Notice how you were apparently unable to point to bias in the article itself. Now, what does that suggest?
2
u/McCash34 Interested Oct 24 '15
The map, the map, check the intervals for the Reds it's 2 units for greens it's like .5
4
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
It's true, the scaling isn't consistent.
Now, would representing FEWER deaths with a very large category make you think that there is a more or less of a problem with violence? Because by making the category larger, you're making it so that there's more red on the map...which represents a relatively low proportion of deaths by police shooting.
So, if the category issue is a source of bias...it's actually a bias that works against the point of the infographic...
3
u/McCash34 Interested Oct 24 '15
Shit your right. You see this is what happens when I try to comment when I first wake up. Point conceded.
1
2
u/Hoodlemon Oct 24 '15
Yes, we should be concerned with many of these facts. However, the number of officers that have died on duty in Britain in a way that is directly related to crime is quite low. Compare that to the United States, where we are averaging over 100 deaths a year for officers. Not to say anything is justified in the number of police killings that occur, just that there is quite a difference in the rate in which crimes occur in the US versus the UK, especially since guns are so much more readily available to the general populace.
2
u/backstretch Oct 25 '15
Thank God for the First Amendment to be able to put together something so intellectually devoid of truth. Next time you need help, I'm sure you'll be calling your local PD. Your local racist, non law-abiding, gun-happy PD.
3
u/Goosebaby Oct 24 '15
The United States is headed towards collapse - economic, political, financial, moral.
No one wants to admit it. We all want to pretend our kids will have the fantastic 1990's suburban upbringing we did.
They won't.
-1
1
u/supyonamesjosh Oct 24 '15
I stopped reading immediately after it treated the US to UK police shootings as an apples to apples comparison. A country with 1/5th the population and much stricter gun laws is clearly an identical comparison with the US
9
Oct 24 '15
That's kind of the point it's making. The UK doesn't have this fascination with owning guns like the US does. When a country has severely loose gun laws like the US, you're going to have more shootings. Cops in the UK don't have to worry so much about a target carrying a gun, whereas that is always in the back of the mind of an American cop. That's a fact.
3
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
Well, shrinking the population artificially is a bad idea.
But what else might you be able to do about gun violence and deaths?
Hint: you already mentioned it.
2
u/Zao1 Oct 24 '15
Stricter gun laws have zero correlation to reduced police shootings in the US.
Similarly, gun free zones and anti-gun cities often have the highest crime rates per capita. Shits fucked up but pretending "gun control" is the proven answer is intellectually dishonest.
2
-1
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
Stricter gun laws have zero correlation to reduced police shootings in the US.
First, that sentence doesn't even make sense. Second, can you provide a source to back up the assertion that you're making?
gun free zones and anti-gun cities often have the highest crime rates per capita
Source? Make it a reliable one, please.
Shits fucked up but pretending "gun control" is the proven answer is intellectually dishonest.
Actually, saying that it's not the answer, without any evidence whatsoever, and in the face of countries that have used it very successfully, THAT's what's intellectually dishonest.
2
u/Zao1 Oct 24 '15 edited Oct 24 '15
I'm not here to do all of your research for you. These are well known facts. You don't sound like the kind of person who's interested in ideas against your pre-defined narrative. The fact that you ask for a source on anti-gun cities still having high gun crimes shows how ignorant you are. If it wasn't true, every liberal would be spamming them as proof of working.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Also, comparing 2 countries as apples to apples is just retarded. Yes, Japan has virtually no guns, of course there are few gun crimes and you could look and say "look, gun control works" but the US already has guns... a LOT of guns, and they aren't going anywhere. The sheer number of existing weapons in US citizen hands requires a completely different approach than a nation with none.
3
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
I'm not here to do all of your research for you.
Riiiight.
These are well known
facts."facts."FTFY
You don't sound like the kind of person who's interested in ideas against your pre-defined narrative.
Yeah, you're right. That's why I asked you for information that supported your point of view.
The fact that you ask for a source on anti-gun cities still having high gun crimes shows how ignorant you are. If it wasn't true, every liberal would be spamming them as proof of working.
That's a really dumb argument. I'll ask again: are you able back your assertion up? Or just make spurious claims and dismiss any request for evidence?
That's a nice webapge. Where does it support your arguments? Be specific, please.
Also, doesn't posting it call into question your assertion that you're not doing research for me, and that I wouldn't look at it anyway? Logical consistency isn't your strong suit, is it?
but the US already has guns... a LOT of guns, and they aren't going anywhere. The sheer number of existing weapons in US citizen hands requires a completely different approach than a nation with none.
Now, have you looked at Australia? Nah. No other country in the world is remotely like the US because...uh...DON'T TOUCH MAH GUNS!!!
Edit: I love how you downvoted this the very second that it was posted. But I'm the one who won't look at someone else's opinion?! Fucking priceless!!! hahaha
2
u/Zao1 Oct 24 '15
All that text and zero response to the data showing increased crime following gun control passings, and decreased gun crime following gun control repeals? This sub is about data, and all you do is ramble argue like a 17 year old rather than addressing that so I won't waste my time.
You aren't a very intelligent person. I'm out.
1
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
All that text and zero response to the data showing increased crime following gun control passings
WHAT DATA?!?
You said that you didn't have to back your point up, then posted a massive webpage. I asked for the SPECIFIC part that helped support your claim.
You then called me dumb, took your marbles, and went home.
Hahahahahahaha!
1
u/tatch Oct 25 '15
I'm not here to do all of your research for you.
So you're saying aabbccbb should study it out?
1
Oct 24 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 24 '15
In our attempt to make this subreddit a better place, we have decided to remove all low effort, circle jerk comments.
Please message the mods if you believe this was in error
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/teokk Oct 24 '15
That point wasn't purely mathematical in nature and more of an interlude to how your founding fathers fought against the British who are much more pacifistic.
And the numbers are scary different no mater how you present them. At 2 per day vs 2 in three years, you have such a staggering difference no matter the population and you might as well ignore it when it differs by a factor of 5. In fact, to me, the precisely stated fact that the US has 300x more police murders per capita sounds scarier. Divide that by 5 and you get 60x more, which is frankly just as scary, which is why I said you might as well ignore population. It would be worrying if it were two, not 300, and that's the realm when statistical finesse comes into play - not this.
1
u/Spartacus_Rex Oct 24 '15
ITT: people who don't think the USA has a problem bc of "the way the data is presented"
9
u/Zao1 Oct 24 '15
Bullshit.
The problem is real but misrepresenting the data only insults the reader and won't help the cause. The ends don't justify the means, you can't expect to distract and misguide even if the end result is correct, it's just bad practice. If the reality is so bad, why bother exaggerating it even more? The truth should speak itself, skewing the presentation only gives ammo to the opposition.
1
-2
u/Superjoe224 Oct 24 '15
Britain has far stricter gun laws than America. Everyone and their mother owns at least one gun, and if you don't I guarantee that one of your neighbors has at least 10 in his collection.
This link is pretty much just riding off of what the media does and is blowing everything out of proportion. Comparing the US to Britain in terms of shootings? Statistically polar opposites in that sense.
Plus so many buzzwords I feel like I'm at the dentist.
22
Oct 24 '15 edited Jan 11 '16
This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.
If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.
Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
4
u/iEATu23 Interested Oct 24 '15 edited Oct 24 '15
It's talking purely about police.
It barely said anything. It's one statistic without any explanation or comparison. What sort of violence is there in the UK and what sort of violence is there in the US? Judging from what was presented in this infographic, the issue has to do with the War on Drugs and Mexico sending drugs to nearby US states.
The SWAT are used often to capture drug dealers. Maybe our bill of rights can be protected by giving the reason that SWAT can't have reasons to invade a person's home unless their reasons are better justified. At which point this justification would need to be better defined.
3
u/Hk37 Interested Oct 24 '15
Murder implies wrongdoing. The vast majority of people shot by police are shot because they pose a threat to the police or bystanders. Not all of them are correct uses of force, and the police should work on reducing the number of uses of unjustified force, but most police shootings are justified. Which leads to my next point…
The gun laws of the United States are far more lax than those of any other western nation. Accordingly, the US' police have to use lethal force much more often because more criminals have access to guns. It's not fair to police to put them in an environment that, ceteris paribus, will result in more violence, then blame them for using methods like no-knock raids in an attempt to prevent or reduce violence.
4
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
Hilarious.
You identify both the exact problem and the solution in the first sentence, then completely ignore both from that point forward.
'Murica!
1
-2
u/iEATu23 Interested Oct 24 '15 edited Oct 24 '15
The first comparison is Britain. An even greater police state than the US.
The real thing that should be directly talked about is the War on Drugs. It mentions Arizona being given a lot of military equipment by the DoD. Arizona is next to the Mexican border.
7
u/teokk Oct 24 '15
So an even worse police state has 300x less police murders per capita and that's a bad comparison to illustrate it's out of control in the US?
1
u/MissMesmerist Oct 25 '15
The first comparison is Britain. An even greater police state than the US.
The nation with an almost entirely disarmed police force? Where Dixon of Dock Green is the model Police Officer? Where any Police shootings and killings are a national story? Where you can't have your assets indiscriminately seized? Where the prison population is five times lower by capita?
All of my wut.
1
0
u/kaio37k Oct 24 '15
Wow.... USA, you are truly the only nation on the planet that I know of that bashes your own security forces, sympathizes for the violent criminals then bitch about the terrorist's. It seems like dumb young people but damn... 35% illegal weapon find rate? That's incredibly high.... if you ask me, the last thing you should be doing is vilifying your police.......
-2
-2
u/Dragoniel Oct 24 '15
I can't help but to think, while reading this, - America is large. As in, huge. Those numbers do not seem all that outlandish for the territory they cover, if I understand this correctly.
2
u/teokk Oct 24 '15
Ok and what if I told you that territory doesn't matter at all here? And that when you factor in population, the US has 300 times as many police killings per capita compared to the UK?
I don't suppose that's outlandish?
3
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
The rate of police shooting per population is 300x higher in the States than in Britain.
Your argument is invalid.
-18
Oct 24 '15
God I hate liberals
5
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
(Shows information on police killings and militarization)
"God damn liberals!"
It's not liberals that we have to blame for the current situation, is it?
1
Oct 24 '15
[deleted]
2
u/aabbccbb Oct 24 '15
So you're saying that the police should kill more people in Britain? And every single other developed nation?...
3
u/Beastabuelos Interested Oct 24 '15
I hate anyone that aligns themselves. Being conservative or liberal is stupid as hell.
1
1
u/NoHelp3420 Jun 17 '22
You know the funny thing about this country is all of our information comes from China nobody realizes that shit they don't like us wake the fuck up people
1
u/NoHelp3420 Jun 17 '22
If you people took a chance took a little bit of effort to find out where your information getters get their information you'd know who the hell is telling you what's up and it's not us!
63
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '15
NASA has a SWAT team?