If people assumed that deaths from car crashes were usually intentionally inflicted on others, as they do with firearms, then yes, I would expect you to clarify that most car crashes are accidents when citing statistics about them that are not specific enough to convey that information on their own. If you think clarity in these matters is unimportant then you are in no position to be lecturing me about the proper use of statistics. Thanks for being a dick though, that’s super conducive to meaningful discussion.
For clarity, in this graph, ‘Firearm’ means any death caused by a firearm.
Instead of asserting disingenuousness on the part of the graph or article with more context it was pulled from, which I provided a link to.
That would be how to discuss this constructively, vs antagonistically.
Perhaps you have… evidence for your naked assertion related to the prevelance of assumptions/interpretations around specific terminology/vocabulary, in certain contexts?
As a counter to your personal interpretation… beyond having a career as a data analyst, I’ve also had a bit of and off an on hobby of shooting, at gun ranges.
I can very much tell you that the gun immersed culture has… very different (and often much more precise) understandings of all terminology that is any way related to firearms, than people who have essentially zero experience or familiarity or proper training with firearms.
And, in the US… quite a lot of people are far more dedicated to firearms as a hobby or even lifestyle than in… probably anywhere else in the world, per capita.
We do have more privately owned guns than people here, I can’t say I’m aware of any other country with that kind of a statistic… maybe Afghanistan? Syria?
Switzerland maybe? But… their gun laws work in a way that I really think in an ideal world, the US could somehow move toward, much more restrictve than the US, but much less restrictive than many other countries.
I told you that the statistic was presented in a misleading manner and clarified the correct context which is exactly what you’re now suggesting I should have done. If you inferred anything else from my original comment then that’s on you.
If people assumed that deaths from car crashes were usually intentionally inflicted on others, as they do with firearms, then yes, I would expect you to clarify that most car crashes are accidents when citing statistics about them that are not specific enough to convey that information on their own. If you think clarity in these matters is unimportant then you are in no position to be lecturing me about the proper use of statistics. Thanks for being a dick though, that’s super conducive to meaningful discussion.
You literally just could have said:
Instead of asserting disingenuousness on the part of the graph or article with more context it was pulled from, which I provided a link to.
That would be how to discuss this constructively, vs antagonistically.
Perhaps you have… evidence for your naked assertion related to the prevelance of assumptions/interpretations around specific terminology/vocabulary, in certain contexts?
As a counter to your personal interpretation… beyond having a career as a data analyst, I’ve also had a bit of and off an on hobby of shooting, at gun ranges.
I can very much tell you that the gun immersed culture has… very different (and often much more precise) understandings of all terminology that is any way related to firearms, than people who have essentially zero experience or familiarity or proper training with firearms.
And, in the US… quite a lot of people are far more dedicated to firearms as a hobby or even lifestyle than in… probably anywhere else in the world, per capita.
We do have more privately owned guns than people here, I can’t say I’m aware of any other country with that kind of a statistic… maybe Afghanistan? Syria?
Switzerland maybe? But… their gun laws work in a way that I really think in an ideal world, the US could somehow move toward, much more restrictve than the US, but much less restrictive than many other countries.
I told you that the statistic was presented in a misleading manner and clarified the correct context which is exactly what you’re now suggesting I should have done. If you inferred anything else from my original comment then that’s on you.