33,636 Gun Deaths Visualized

Here is a graph showing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle accident deaths. Finding and posting a graph showing gun ownership rates and gun death trends is an exercise left to the reader.

1 Like

You mean to compare accidental gun deaths per year, right? The number of cars used as weapons is pretty small, and at any point when a gun or car are used to hurt someone intentionally, how safe that car or gun is isn’t relevant.

How safe a fire arm is has no affect on things like suicides and gun crime. The reason we see a drop in car deaths is safer cars and roads.

Since these list their source, I will go ahead and post them. It looks like accidents are down, despite an increased supply, which I think stems from the education to keep stuff locked up. When I was a kid my dad had his stuff more or less secured, but I could have gotten into them if I really, really wanted to. Now a days he has a safe as do many gun owners and even casual owners now use locks and small safes.


Why exactly is the death rate per capita and the handgun supply not?

They both could exist just fine with a single axis, seeing a second one in there is mighty suspicious.

Probably because that was how the stats were presented. And it is hard to translate into per-capita because we only have a rough estimate of number of gun owners. And as per the graph, the handgun numbers are estimates as well. It is meant to show the general trend the accidents are down while supply is up.

So there are what, .33 handguns per people in America, and 1.5 handguns per gun owners in America. Roughly.

I don’t think that’s the reasoning. You’ll note that the firearm ownership also starts well above zero while deaths per capita does not. Even just a pure numbers version (not per-capita, which is how you’re supposed to do any visualization where the population increases over time) would be dramatically flattened by proper inclusion and would not give the impression that they’ve ramped up disproportionately. Surely you can see that yourself, right?

I do data analytic work and visualization for a living, and all three graphs are very deceptive.

I’ll note that the second one is deceptive in the opposite direction, as firearm deaths are held to a lower axis rather than a higher one, auto deaths are well over an order of magnitude greater than firearm ones.

So all of them are kind of crap, but not consistently in the same direction.


Another fucking gun thread with the normal players on all sides… Didn’t we just do this like five times?


Hush now, I’m arguing about poor data visualization currently.

We’ve only discussed this once!



There are probably a fair number of suicides-by-car, and not a few homicides-by-car. I think we should stick with totals all the way around. These graphs seem striking.


This whole thread…This whole argument is ridiculous. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, they use guns, fists, knives, cars, airplanes, or what ever else is at hand. People learn to treat cars with respect, because they are dangerous, treat guns with respect, because they are dangerous too. People are encouraged to be responsible with planes, because they are dangerous, encourage people to be responsible with guns because they are dangerous too. All of these arguments are specious. People have died because of children playing with matches, just as people have died because children have played with guns. And yes, there is a need go matches, cars, planes, and guns. And for those who just can’t understand the point here; I feel sorry for you the most. Please don’t by a gun, matches, or a car, you shouldn’t be trusted with anything that could harm anyone.

1 Like

Uh huh. Gotta have your guns, right?


Well, a car is used to get from place to place, which is somewhat mandatory in our current society, at least until we have cities that are designed to be carfree.

Matches are used to make fires, which are often helpful for cooking and killing bacteria and other organisms that can sicken and kill your family.

Guns are just used to shoot people, and occasionally to escalate situations that would have resulted in ‘stolen television’ into ‘dead human’.

People don’t break into your home to kill you, unless you’ve got a creepy stalker abusive ex who is genuinely violent, in which case that is admittedly a problem society should do something about…but strangely victimized women aren’t heavily targeted by the NRA nor do conservatives tend to put much into protecting them…they seem more focused on making sure that abusive stalkers can have guns too.


Stop the gun violins?

1 Like

Okay… those are pretty cool looking. Although I’d still rather have Laurie Anderson’s tape bow violin:


1 Like

You’re argument still lacks a cogent point. It wont stop criminals from obtaining, or using guns, if they want to. It hasn’t stopped gun violence in Europe, where most European countries make it illegal to own or purchase a gun. People still find a way to get them.

Just because I tired of hearing all of this rhetorical crap doesn’t mean I own, or want to own a gun. I’m just tired of all this emotionally charged pointless rhetoric.

If you really want to make the world a better place. Get off your high horses, go shelter the homeless, feed the starving, and start putting some effort into lifting up the down-trodden. Instead being focused on finding reasons to put people down and spew hate speech, try complimenting people and finding reasons to be gracious.

1 Like

The violin is one the most beautiful instruments in the world. I don’t see the point with the guns. Could it be a metaphor for liberalism…“You’re free to play whatever music you like, unless I don’t like it…then I’ll pull the trigger”

1 Like

You’re making the points (badly) that others have tried making in the, literally, 10 other threads on firearms here in the last six months. I know you’re new so do us all a favor and go read those threads instead of just saying the same things that have already been discussed to death.

tl;dr: Your points aren’t original and don’t contribute anything here. We’ve hashed them to death before.


Australia disagrees.

(Note, added the humor version, but I’ll happily shred you with stats if you really want)

Why do you think that the same people who are anti-violence aren’t also more likely to be pro-human-dignity? Do we not help the homeless?

Why would you even think to make that argument? Why are you saying that people who disagree with you are ‘spewing hate speech’?