Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_is6kxl6 wrote

Mexico: perfectly balanced as all things should be

242

[deleted] t1_is7mhr1 wrote

[deleted]

145

JooosephNthomas t1_is7pshu wrote

No, not a lie, just requires some interpretation beyond the graphic which kind of breaks some data display rules. Good for skewing data though and the viewer's perception of it.

49

[deleted] t1_is7rnpe wrote

[deleted]

29

PrinceTwoTonCowman t1_is7ssx2 wrote

Maybe police killings per 100,000 police officers on the bottom?

I mean, if the police are killing almost 30 people per 10 million (per year?) that's about 1000 people. There are almost 700,000 police officers so that would be a rate of 142 killings per 100,000 police officers on the bottom part.

6

provocative_bear t1_is8dws3 wrote

It’s not a contest! It’s just showing a correlation between violence in society vs their police force.

12

j48u t1_is8iyfh wrote

Unfortunately, what's upvoted on this sub is no longer good or beautiful data, the political and agenda stuff gets pushed to the front like everywhere else. I'm not saying the topics aren't important, but that's not what this sub is for (I thought).

Even the spacing of the units on the X is stretched further than the Y, for no particular reason other than to exaggerate.

11

ddrcrono t1_is84fi9 wrote

Yeah but you also have to consider how many police there are per capita vs how many capita there are per capita.

37

saelgsi t1_is99wi2 wrote

Or per decapita in some places

29

ca_kingmaker t1_is9jik4 wrote

There’s a Das kapital joke follow up joke here and I just can’t formulate it and it’s pissing me off.

3

saelgsi t1_is9k8pr wrote

Noup. Decapita as in decapitated, beheaded, not so unusual kind of mobs punishment in some areas in Mexico.

1

inactiveuser247 t1_is7vfss wrote

There’s a hell of a lot more people than there are police, so it’s reasonable

3

[deleted] t1_is7mx0l wrote

Is it?

2

Pyrhan t1_is85h2o wrote

Yeah. Look at the labels on the axes:

"Homicide rate per capita (per 100,000)"

"Police killings per capita (Rate per 10M)"

​

Very misleading. I would not have noticed without u/klavical pointing it out.

OP should have used "per 1 million" for both and changed the number on the axes.

14

-Ch4s3- t1_is6p1nd wrote

Brazil (5,804 in 2019) and Venezuela (5,287 in 2018) aren't in the OECD but are useful when thinking about the Americas. Brazil is especially interesting as it is also a large(220m people) multi-ethnic, multi-racial, religiously plural, and post-colonial democracy.

92

[deleted] t1_is6sllx wrote

Brazil is in general quite a useful metric of comparison for a country like the USA but Americans tend to compare themselves endlessly to countries like Germany or Denmark

46

[deleted] t1_is6vxwe wrote

[deleted]

72

pk10534 t1_is72kx8 wrote

Idk, why is GDP per capita the only metric that should be used to group countries? The US has far more in common with Brazil and Mexico in terms of history, religion, geography, diversity, former colonial status, etc than it does with Belgium or Norway. Because Brazil is poorer, it doesn’t make sense to compare two large, diverse countries with similar histories of slavery and colonization with hundreds of millions of people, but it does make sense to compare the US to a country like Luxembourg, a small affluent, homogenous European nation with fewer people than Indianapolis? Or Norway, which has half the population of Los Angeles county and practically no resemblance to the US in anything but income?

I grow so weary of these weird excuses where apparently “developing” nations (which, I will point out, is a totally arbitrary term) are too dysfunctional or anarchic to be compared to “civilized” European/North American countries. I just don’t buy that.

58

thebestoflimes t1_is765z3 wrote

Poor communities within countries will generally have much higher rates of violent crime and the same holds true for countries as well. The USA is consistently a heavy outlier when compared to other very wealthy countries in terms of healthcare, imprisonment, violent crime, etc.

27

Siglet84 t1_is776sp wrote

The USA is like a giant Germany with a bunch of brazils tucked inside of it. If you’re reasonably wealthy, you aren’t really affected by crime of criminals cops. If you’re poor, crime and criminal cops are a daily part of life.

26

-Ch4s3- t1_is86xlq wrote

That’s the case in Brazil as well. Wealthy Brazilians are constantly in NYC and Miami, speak perfect English, send their children to boarding school, and vacation in Europe.

12

Duncan-McCawkiner t1_is8ie6c wrote

I wouldn’t even say reasonably wealthy. I’d say just not completely impoverished. You can be relatively poor and live in very safe rural/suburban communities in the US. It’s people living in areas of high poverty where you’re dealing with violent crime and police corruption daily. Although I’d argue there’s a fair share of police corruption in the US even within the safe wealthy communities just low risk of being shot by them for no reason and even then that still only really applies if you’re white.

1

RajaSonu t1_is95gqy wrote

Police being placed in school and changing school policies means that wealthier Americans are beginning to have more interactions with cops then before. Now students are getting arrested for behavior that previously got them suspended.

1

pk10534 t1_is7auwq wrote

I don’t dispute any of that, my point was solely that it doesn’t make any more sense to compare the US to Lichtenstein or Denmark than it does to compare the US to Brazil. Wealth shouldn’t be the only factor we look at.

For instance: Mexico is a high income economy who also broke away from a European power and is a democratic, free market nation. Mexico’s GNI is actually closer to Spain’s than Spain’s is to the US. If it’s fair game to compare spain to the US (which has a GNI $40,000 dollars higher than spain), why is it not for Mexico?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal)_per_capita

9

RambunctiousRabbi t1_isaq9x2 wrote

Youre wayyyy too smart yo be arguing this on Reddit.

But you’re 100% correct in my eyes

2

100dylan99 t1_is7dv1r wrote

> The USA is consistently a heavy outlier when compared to other very wealthy countries in terms of healthcare, imprisonment, violent crime, etc.

That's because other "developed countries" are Europe, Arabia, and a few places in Asia.

The Americas are more violent than just about everywhere in Eurasia, hell, even Africa when you adjust for GDP (outside of South Africa, which is in many ways more like LatAm than the rest of Africa anyway. The US has a very minor version of the problem Brazil has. It is not doing very poorly at the job that France is doing.

5

Spambot0 t1_is78f5u wrote

Every time a selected group of countries is used, it's because they give the result the person wants, and the ensemble of all countries doesn't.

It's P-hacking 101.

10

TurtleFisher54 t1_is76h2n wrote

For 1 money is the main divider in the world so it makes sense to use it as a baseline for comparison. You make good points tho it is not the end all be all.

6

pk10534 t1_is79rax wrote

I totally agree income is part of the puzzle, I just can’t stand when it seems like people dismiss certain nations from comparison to the US because it would hurt their narrative (for instance, when the Washington post made a graph for violent crime in OECD countries to talk about violence in the US, but left out Mexico).

4

-Ch4s3- t1_is87btg wrote

For sure. Talk to Amy middle class person from Monterey and they are more culturally like people in the US than almost any European.

4

forteborte t1_is7mjrm wrote

also communities in general, anything west of the mississippi is stuco and doesn’t have mom and pop businesses or community to fall on.

4

[deleted] t1_is6x7iw wrote

It's much poorer but it's very similar in a lot of ways, too

6

-Ch4s3- t1_is86oqc wrote

That isn’t the reason I think the comparison is apt. Both the US and Brazil were former colonies of European powers made independent by popular revolt. They both have a legacy of slavery. Both have bursts of immigration around 1900 from the old world. Both have very large territories. Both have substantial minerals resources. Both have checkered histories with indigenous peoples. Both are multiethnic and multiracial democracies. Both have large minorities of Spanish speakers. Brazil and the US have more in common historically and structurally than the US and Germany.

4

aroboteer t1_is96ipg wrote

Wealth really has nothing to do with this because it's more a culture issue than a wealth issue. Much of Europe left slavery to their colonies early in the slave trade, and poc are much less prevalent in eu as a whole, so they don't have to deal with as much prejudice or interracial/intercultural issues that many American countries deal with. Despite the cultural diversity in some western eu countries in terms of culture represented, the overall ratio of white to poc is much higher than in American countries.

2

Aelig_ t1_is9um7g wrote

If GDP per capita was a good metric for anything the USA would be a paradise, yet sane people would rather live in Germany than the US given the choice.

−2

Fun_Designer7898 t1_isacssb wrote

Germans migrate to the US at 3 times the levels than vice versa, what are you on about

3

Aelig_ t1_isaftwn wrote

Of course it's higher, it's incredibly difficult for an American to immigrate anywhere within Schengen while any educated German would be welcome to the US and could enjoy a decent standard of living due to their high salary. Doesn't mean the country isn't an absolute shithole for the lower classes compared to Germany.

−2

IncidentalIncidence t1_isby4ul wrote

>Of course it's higher, it's incredibly difficult for an American to immigrate anywhere within Schengen while any educated German would be welcome to the US and could enjoy a decent standard of living due to their high salary.

literally none of this is true. Schengen visas for Americans are pretty easy to get.

Hell, you can literally get a student visa to study in Germany for 300 euros a semester.

The requirements for Americans for Schengen visas aren't any different than they are for everyone else in the world (and more easily attainable for Americans than a lot of other countries in terms of higher education and work experience).

Conversely, it's a lot harder to immigrate to the US as a European, either for education or for work -- universities cost tens of thousands for foreign students, and H1-B jobs (skilled worker visas) are much more limited than the analog Schengen visas.

edit: replied and blocked? NICE

>You have no idea of what you're talking about but keep dreaming

I literally am an American holder of a Schengen residence permit you absolute muppet

>I live you have to literally prove to the ministry of labour that no candidate from the entire Schengen area could be found to fill your job application to let an American in.

You have to do that for every visa-sponsoring job in every country ever. You have to do that for all foreign (or in the Schengen area, non-EU) workers who don't already have a work permit; it has nothing to do with Americans. (And US companies also have to do that when they hire Europeans)

The difference being the Schengen countries give out a lot more of those permits than the US does H1-Bs, which are capped by law and decided by a lottery.

>Sure you can get in on a student visa but you'll have to leave after graduating so I wouldn't call that immigrating as you can't stay.

Having a degree from a German university lowers the requirements you need to get a permanent residence permit, lowers the requirements you need to apply for German citizenship, and grants you a grace period to stay in the country while you look for a job after you graduate.

The whole point of the freely available student visas is to encourage immigration.

>But given that you think living in a corrupt shithole without basic human decency is great I'd advice you stay there.

lmfao, cope more

0

Aelig_ t1_isbyuof wrote

You have no idea of what you're talking about but keep dreaming. Where I live you have to literally prove to the ministry of labour that no candidate from the entire Schengen area could be found to fill your job application to let an American in. Sure you can get in on a student visa but you'll have to leave after graduating so I wouldn't call that immigrating as you can't stay.

This sort of rule is very common in Schengen countries.

But given that you think living in a corrupt shithole without basic human decency is great I'd advice you stay there. You're literally commenting on a thread about the vast over representation of people killed by the police against crime, and you still think it's a great place to live. We've all seen the videos about cops murdering your fellow citizens in broad daylight, and we're watching you do nothing about it year after year.

1

AFatz t1_isbpiuo wrote

Tell that to my family who left Germany years ago to go to the US.

2

-Ch4s3- t1_is6w2mw wrote

Yeah it’s the wrong comparison IMHO. It may be compelling to call the US a failed Europe, but it’s more correct to look at it as a very successful post-colonial democracy.

8

Frank9567 t1_is98n3j wrote

I'd agree with the very successful part, but democracy is probably not quite accurate. It certainly has democratic elements, but the system incorporates a number of features, some unique like the electoral college, and systematic high corporate influence, and others not so unique like gerrymander and voter suppression, that make classing the US as a democracy is problematic.

That's NOT to criticise, because the US IS successful as a result of the system. It's just misleading to compare with democracies which don't have the unique non-democratic elements that the US does.

2

-Ch4s3- t1_isa8j3k wrote

Being the first mover in designing a system has some draw backs. That said the system involves voting directly for a congress and a president, it’s more direct that some parliamentary systems.

4

angrybirdseller t1_ise7kyv wrote

Parts of USA had one party rule the Deep south until the 1960s. Jim Crow was the rule.

1

PaxNova t1_is7io0r wrote

Frankly, I think the best European comparison to the US would be... all of Europe. It's about the same size. similar resources, and about twice the population (which is still a lot, but better than a fourth the population like with the German example). It has varied terrains and densities as well. If you're going to compare individual Euro countries, compare them to states.

2

Fun_Designer7898 t1_isaczcv wrote

Europe is a continent, how can anyone compare it to a country

If you want to compare individual european countries, compare them to actual countries

−3

PaxNova t1_isagcht wrote

You underestimate the amount of latitude individual states have. There's fifty of them in the US, and the laws that bind them are primarily economic ones. There are 44 countries in Europe, most of them bound through the EU for economic regulations.

1

Fun_Designer7898 t1_isagewy wrote

State≠country

−3

knottheone t1_isaqcdi wrote

States in the US have almost as much agency over the lives of their citizens as the average country does and that's by design. The only things states aren't personally concerned with are outlined in the Constitution like national defense, international diplomacy, and minting of a common currency to name a few. Everything else is by default a states' rights concern as per the 10th amendment.

2

PaxNova t1_isaq9ka wrote

... so? Why would that ruin the comparison?

1

Fun_Designer7898 t1_isaqecr wrote

Because we are comparing countries

0

PaxNova t1_isarhw3 wrote

Fair enough. Though I'll note that, unlike some European countries, police regulation is set at a state level, like in Germany or Switzerland (cantons). In France and Spain, the police are national. You're already lumping at least 50 different sets of regulation together just by using the US, which also muddles the data. Country-to-country is not a good comparison.

1

anonsharksfan t1_is9c6n2 wrote

I like Australia as a comp, aside from the difference in population, it ticks most of the same boxes as the US in terms of culture, history, and demographics.

0

JosephusMillerTime t1_is8sgbo wrote

Is the US the "leader of the free world" or "should be compared to developing nations".

Choose one.

−2

-Ch4s3- t1_is8u95v wrote

What are your arguing against here? I'm making the point that the US is historically more like Mexico, the Bolivarian states, and Brazil than say... Denmark.

That the US has risen to become the global hegemon doesn't make it any more like any of the OECD nations except maybe some weird reflection of the UK of a century ago. That the US is far more free, less violent, and wealthier than other post-colonial nations with diverse populations is interesting and unusual.

4

JosephusMillerTime t1_is8uqyw wrote

It seems like people in the US get really offended when it is pointed out their country really should be doing better on a bunch of metrics

−6

Fun_Designer7898 t1_isadu7i wrote

Not from the US here, i'll use Germany as a example

I think that should also apply to how other countries lack behind in a lot of other things as well

Germany (most of europe actually) is losing share of total net wealth and gdp while the US is steadily increasing and even rising faster than china in terms of wealth last year

The US overtook germanies car industry with Tesla or at least heavily decreased germanies share

Germany has very good social systems (so far) and good living conditions but that doesn't make up for the fact that energy costs close to 10 as much as in the US

Germanies military is not even in the top 15 of the world, which isn't acceptable given it's size

3

-Ch4s3- t1_is8vt7h wrote

If you say so. But it’s not like France for example is doing particularly well. France had again for example 20% youth unemployment vs 8% in the US. Then US is far more open to immigration. Americans have broader rights in most respects.

There are a lot of ways to slice and dice national data depending on what you’re trying to claim. But, European states are old, homogeneous by comparison, have recently had to rebuild from war, and are on paths of decreasing global importance. They just don’t compare, except on GDP per capita.

−1

JosephusMillerTime t1_is8wf2g wrote

Australia, Canada and New Zealand are your post colonial peers.

My point is these are the countries who the US claims as closest allies and peers on one hand. Then on the other we get people like you saying how well you do in humanitarian metrics compared to Brazil and India.

0

-Ch4s3- t1_is90ctr wrote

There are like 5 people in Australia and New Zealand and they were mostly settled after American independence so they didn’t go through a revolutionary period. The revolutionary period is the distinguishing historical factor IMO. Canada is special because it was principally French and Catholic prior to America’s revolution and was then flooded with exiled royalists/loyalists. As with Australia and New Zealand it is still part of the commonwealth.

1

dr5c OP t1_is6qf2g wrote

A commenter mentioned that the ratios should have the same scale. While I have seen graphs that use different ratios and feel "10 Police Killings per 10 Million" is conceptually simpler than ".1 Police Killings per 100,000", here is an alternative graph with per Capita set on both axis to 100,000. https://imgur.com/a/NN3JUGu

Thank you for the feedback.

64

[deleted] t1_is6zumc wrote

This is WAY better. Now we can see that police killings are small compared to homicides, and we're free to compare countries by their ratios (slope to the point) and magnitudes (distance from the origin.) This graph invites us to visually study it.

36

scottevil110 t1_is9o0q5 wrote

Better but mislabeled. Per capita means per person (per head) so by definition they need to be on the same scale if that's the terminology you're using.

2

GenXHax0r t1_is732y0 wrote

Seems to me, basically a line from 0,0 to top, right is the "justified" line -- seems reasonable that the more killings in general, greater numbers of police killings are justified. Bottom,right then is the "more police killings than justified" position.

−2

[deleted] t1_is7437y wrote

This is exactly my point about fixing the axes. Now, I too wonder if there's some as of yet unidentified law that relates the two numbers. Is it linear, or exponentially increasing? Not being distracted by the suggestion that police kill more people, and having to look for that reason, unleashes all these new questions.

0

JosephusMillerTime t1_is8xh1v wrote

This sounds like a Police shooting apologist trying to be diplomatic in an overly gunned up, extremely inequitable and racist country.

I'm not saying you are, but if I was looking to explain away something that is not at all good, this is how I'd do it.

This graph doesn't show that police don't kill more people, for that we'd need the x axis per capita of police not general population.

2

TheMan5991 t1_is6uznw wrote

Thank you for the updated graph. This is a lot easier to read.

21

Illeazar t1_is7avzw wrote

What is this, a post on r/dataisbeautiful where the OP recognizes they messed up and attempts to correct it? This is amazing!

I applaud your willingness to improve, but I do have to say that even your updated graph still gives the impression at first glance that every single cou try has more police killings than homicides, though the updated version it only takes a few seconds of study to correct that vs a whole minute of searching to discover the axes had different units. A truly beautiful graph of this data would show at a glance that while police killings were much lower than homicides in all countries, some countries have a worse ratio than others. Something like a bar graph of police killings per homicde (or per 10 homicdes or whatever) would do this much better than a scatter plot, because in the scatter plot there's no really good way to scale the axes to give the correct visual representation of this particular dataset at first glance.

15

fishling t1_is7tbot wrote

Why wouldn't you choose "per 1 million" though, for both?

It is more natural to think of whole numbers for something like killings, and the idea of "parts/things per million" is more common than your original "per 10M" scale.

Also, why are you calling it "per capita" when it is is "per 100k"? Per capita means for a single individual. That's like calling it percent (per 100k); it's not a per "cent" if it's not out of 100.

Also, why aren't your flags the same size, why are the dots so large, why are the flags even there, why isn't the arrow behind the box, why couldn't you figure out a way to label each country (I've seen busy charts do this, so it's possible).

4

breakfasteveryday t1_is7reh1 wrote

I'd love to see the likelihood of someone being a killer among the police vs civilian population. Like "of 10,000 police, how many have killed someone" vs the civilian rate.

41

Rimfax t1_is9nf21 wrote

There are about 2 police officers for every thousand Americans. So, 28 police killings for every 10 million Americans means there are 140 police killings for every 100k police officers, as compared to 5 civilian killings per 100,000 American civilians.

So, there are 28 times as many killings by police officers per police officer than there are killings by civilians per civilian.

15

Beckler89 t1_isaa81q wrote

I don't see how that data would be pertinent, other than for curiosity's sake. The average person isn't put into tense and potentially violent situations with nearly the same frequency. It's not really a useful comparison because as a civilian, nobody is calling me when facing a threat.

5

ScootForTheStars t1_is9d56j wrote

Damn I wonder if that would be difficult to find for this many countries but would be really interesting if someone did!

1

crfman450 t1_is9ji0d wrote

There is data for police killings and homicides, than there has to be data on size of police force and general population🤔

2

JamarioMoon t1_is8mpr4 wrote

This graph makes it seem like there are more police killings than homicides

22

Robims_13 t1_isayddl wrote

As other said: There aren't as many police officers than regular people so obviously its stacked in their favor.

2

[deleted] t1_is6lzce wrote

Why is it rate per 100,000 capita on one axis, and rate per 10M capita on the other axis? Are you trying to make police killings look 100x worse than they actually are? Because that's what you did.

13

dr5c OP t1_is6mos5 wrote

It literally does not change the shape of the graph, only the ticks of the axis. The information is still preserved since they are ratios.

0

CaptnGizmo t1_is6nrfq wrote

I'm not sure about that. I was initially confused why Canada's police killings were so high compared to homicide rates, because I was fooled.

14

Finn_3000 t1_is9ax0x wrote

If he made it with per 100k capita then it literally woulsnt look any different. It would just say 0.2 instead of 20 on the X axis.

1

bomphcheese t1_is6pi3z wrote

I also read it incorrectly. It absolutely affects how the data is read and information processed. Not cool.

8

[deleted] t1_is6nhwp wrote

I think you need to study how graphs commonly mislead people in order to avoid those techniques. Nobody should take a cheat seriously once they're exposed. There is responsible data science, and then there's that.

7

JPAnalyst t1_is6r99t wrote

The graph would look EXACTLY the same if they did that.

−4

[deleted] t1_is6rqqr wrote

The shape of the data points doesn't change, but the axes do. That's what makes this misleading.

5

JPAnalyst t1_is6s2q8 wrote

It’s labeled, nothing is hidden. In graphs, it’s the visual that matters. That’s why we make graphs because the shape is what the takeaway is. This is not deceptive at all.

0

[deleted] t1_is6ylbj wrote

The takeaway is that police kill more people than homicides. This is the WRONG takeaway because it's factually incorrect. What that means is that one or more things you said about graphs is also WRONG.

3

[deleted] t1_is70c5c wrote

[removed]

0

[deleted] t1_is70o66 wrote

I'm sure simple logic does sound like a dick to you. Try learning simple logic, and maybe it won't.

5

TheMan5991 t1_is6uog4 wrote

It may not change the shape, but it is very misleading. You should use the same unit for both axes and just show the relative numbers. For example, rather than showing the US as 5/100k murders and 28/10M police killings, it would be more sincere to show 5/100k murders and 0.28/100k police killings. Or 500/10M and 28/10M. Because when people are reading the graph as you have it, they are going to see 5 and 28 and think that police kill almost 6 times as many people as other criminals. In reality, they kill a little over 5% as much.

Also, doesn’t make any sense to choose 10M since many of those countries on the left side don’t even have 10M people.

5

Aegis2009 t1_is6mk3j wrote

México Mágico 😍

(por favor saquenme de Latinoamérica)

13

dr5c OP t1_is6l4up wrote

Data Sources:

- Police Killings by Country from World Population Review: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country

- Violent Crime Statistics by Country from World Population Review: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country

Tools Used:

- Everyone's Favorite - Google Sheets and then Google Drawings for stuff on top.

​

Notes:

- I choose 1 violent crime metric (homicide) rather than the composite of all because it was not clear whether or not the reportings were collectively exhaustive or not (i.e. can an incident count as a robbery AND a homicide). I leave the other crime statistics as an exercise to the reader.

- The Data sources for each are honestly not great - World Population Review data has numbers for widely different years for each element which means there is absolutely a need to regularly collect this data to have the most up to date. I wanted to use all OECD countries but the selection here is those who actually had data for Police Killings (not a lot of countries seem to report this or at least they are not present in the world population review data).

- Does this look ugly? Yes - but I saw that # police killings post and wanted to quick respond with something that hopefully addressed questions thrown at the OP of that other post.

8

Deckinabox t1_is829xh wrote

your choice of axes units is "honestly not great" plot it with the same units next time

2

turtle4499 t1_isb8t9n wrote

"Honestly not great" or Intended to be crazy misleading because OP has an agenda?

1

Delicious_Rabbit4425 t1_is8lpbl wrote

Why aren’t the per capita the same for both measurements?

6

Over9000Bunnies t1_is9tm3s wrote

I'd guess that if the y axis was changed to 10M instead of 0.1M, it would flatten the graph by a factor of 100. So then the graph would look more or less like a straight line as far as our eyes could tell.

3

Deckinabox t1_is8244h wrote

This graph is messed up and uninterpretable. What the heck is "per capita per 10million" supposed to be??? And why the heck is the y-axis "per capita per 100,000"??? What?!!?!!?!?

5

randomguyonreddit678 t1_isaovu5 wrote

We in r/dataisbeautiful do not believe in per capita and understandable representation of data, to include either is heresy

2

JustSomeGuy556 t1_is7uz4s wrote

  1. Your scale being different is misleading.
  2. "Select OECD countries" is rather dishonest. It strongly implies you are removing data points inconvenient to your desired political views.
4

RzLa t1_is72nov wrote

Being Canadian this is concerning. We have restrictive gun laws and we are not a narco-paramilitary state.

3

TheSpoonKing t1_is75htq wrote

Unfortunately there have been a lot of people in major cities wandering around with pipe shotguns and illegal handguns smuggled across the border, and as such there have been a lot more instances where our police have to match lethal force. The other trend I've noticed is a lot more people here lying to and arguing with the police, as if that isn't the worst thing they could be doing for their situation. IMO people are falling for the same "sovereign citizen-lite" advice that gets posted on Facebook lying about the law and telling people they don't need to cooperate with the police.

14

RzLa t1_itcl10h wrote

I don’t think illegal guns are the reasons why Ontario cops have been murdering people with mental illnesses.

1

dml997 t1_is74j3b wrote

We're next to you know who, and their influence and other things leak over the border.

11

pk10534 t1_is7o8pt wrote

So...can the US excuse its violent crime rate because it is on a border with Mexico? After all, things leak over the border

1

HashSlangingSlash3r t1_is7ur8b wrote

Yeah, you kinda can, actually. The southwestern states in the US are filled with gangs from Mexico

8

pk10534 t1_is7v7ma wrote

Not really.

https://www.axios.com/2020/12/01/border-cities-safest-fbi-data

−4

HashSlangingSlash3r t1_is80eo4 wrote

Lol I’m not talking about boarder towns. Look into Houston, Los Angeles or surrounding areas, Phoenix, and Albuquerque. These are areas with a long history of Mexican gang activities, which involves illegal arms and drugs sales, human and sex trafficking, and violet crime, and you cannot deny that.

4

pk10534 t1_is81veh wrote

They have crime, and the issues you mentioned, but they are far from the most dangerous cities. Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, St Louis, Little Rock, New Orleans, Memphis, Flint, etc are nowhere near the border.

Why would the border also affect cities like LA so strongly, yet completely ignore El Paso, which is literally across the river from an extremely violent Mexican city with heavy cartel influences?

−1

HashSlangingSlash3r t1_is83vsc wrote

First paragraph of cities is irrelevant. I’m talking about Mexican gangs, not Black American gangs. Those cities are plagued with gangs formed by Black Americans.

>”Why would the border also affect cities like LA so strongly, yet completely ignore El Paso, which is literally across the river from an extremely violent Mexican city with heavy cartel influences?”

I cannot answer that for you, only speculate. I’m not law enforcement, nor am I a gang member. That’s just what they decided to do. Maybe the boarder on the US side is more heavily secured and monitored by law enforcement, so they’d have a less chance of getting caught by doing their criminal activities far from the boarder. El Paso also has a military base, Fort Bliss.

5

MF_Bfg t1_is85sdf wrote

I mean, Detroit's right on the border.

1

[deleted] t1_is89xg9 wrote

[deleted]

1

pk10534 t1_is8b6zh wrote

Oh my god I’m so stupid, I totally forgot crime is not tolerated near military bases, which is why the areas around Ft Hood are so nice and safe! That must explain it, because soccer moms in LA are gunned down alllll the time but nobody cares because they aren’t military wives. Gee I’m silly aren’t I?

0

[deleted] t1_is8blnx wrote

[deleted]

2

pk10534 t1_is8cjkq wrote

The person’s comment suggested Mexico was leading to crime in American cities, and specifically cited LA as an example of that. I pointed out a border city that is actually very safe, and you retorted that the reason El Paso is safe is because it has Fort Bliss and soccer moms would get gunned down, causing a stir so the cartels and gangs leave it alone. However, this doesn’t really make sense since 1.) LA has no military base and that’s not happening there, either. It’s almost entirely street violence between local gangs, not cartel violence and 2.) there are plenty of areas with military bases nearby that are very sketchy, so I don’t think that’s a deterrent to crime from Mexico. If it was, Killeen would be like the safest city on earth.

It is true that cities near the border have crimes that are predominantly committed by gangs of young men who are of primarily mexican origin, although that doesn’t mean that crime wouldn’t have been committed if Mexico weren’t nearby. Baltimore has practically zero mexican influence and is one of the most dangerous cities in America, where San Antonio, San Diego and El Paso have a ton of mexican influence and are relatively safe.

I also provided links establishing that border counties are amongst the safest in the US. So no, I don’t think it’s fair to blame violent crime here on Mexico

1

NARMA416 t1_is951u2 wrote

No, the US is the largest exporter of guns and arms in the world. This fuels violence, especially in neighbouring countries like Canada as well as all of the Latin American countries. The gangs are well armed because of American guns and profit from drug sales.

2

pk10534 t1_is96lu9 wrote

Canada also contributes to those profits, no? Or does Canada not also buy opiates and cocaine and amphetamines?

0

NARMA416 t1_is96rbn wrote

Canada has fewer people than the state of California. Also, you're skipping over the guns part. The US is the biggest gun factory in the world.

1

pk10534 t1_is982aq wrote

Having a lot of guns doesn’t inherently make your crime rate go up, otherwise countries like Switzerland would have rather higher crime rates.

1

comcanada78 t1_is7kb92 wrote

The homicide rate is largely similar to the other non-american countries, it is just the police rate that looks to be a lot higher (though the scale of the chart kind of overstates the police differences compared to the homicide differences).

9

EtherealPheonix t1_is7lvhy wrote

I didn't realize the per capita scale was different at first and thought this showed almost all homicides in Mexico being police which seemed odd.

3

caiuscorvus t1_is7vpca wrote

I'd drop Luxembourg from the graph with a note "not enough data".

3

ThePanoptic t1_is9875d wrote

A couple of differences between the US and much of Europe:

- U.S. citizens have open access to guns, which most Europeans do not.

- Europe is largely homogeneous, while the U.S. is very ethnically and culturally diverse.

​

You can certainly argue that we need to restrict guns. It is true.

However, the U.S. prides itself on individuals in society being widely different, and different individuals will always disagree and have different values, which on the national scale often leads to more escalations than societies that are wholly homogeneous.

​

This is only part of the story obviously, but I believe this to be the largest difference between why countries that are similar in most metrics, such as England and the U.S. could have widely different stats on some issues.

3

but_nobodys_home t1_isdtoa7 wrote

In what way is Europe more homogenous than the US? My perception as someone from neither place is that Europe is much more culturally diverse.

1

ThePanoptic t1_ise73a1 wrote

Europe is divided into countries that are not very diverse. At the same time, the U.S. is not divided and has very integrated societies.

The U.S. is only nearly 65% white, trending lower, and has a high percentage of African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and Middle Easterns.

No European country has the U.S. demographics or is even close to it. While European countries have different cultures, no individual country has as much cultural diversity as the U.S.

Europe is split into very small homogenous countries. The U.S. is a very big integrated society, with much more tension because different individuals will have different values and everyone will be more likely to resort to violence, especially when guns are very easy to access in most states.

1

NewChallenger13 t1_is79c6q wrote

I legit don't even know what I'm supposed to take away from this... like cops and murders are as likely to get you in Mexico and Columbia?

2

ThePanoptic t1_is9786f wrote

no, police killings are per 10m and homicide rates are per 100k

meaning that homicides are 100 times higher than police killings.

5

Over9000Bunnies t1_is9u4lb wrote

My takeaway. There is correlation between the general public homicide rate in a country and police killings.

Also, the US stands out in comparison to European countries in both general public homicides and police killings. Mexico cartels putting US homicide rates to shame though.

I am ignoring Luxemburg and Cambodia as I don't feel they really fit in with the rest of the countries on this list.

2

offaseptimus t1_is6mp3t wrote

So of the countries in the Americas it is in the bottom half.

1

dr5c OP t1_is6n86u wrote

My read is - there are two countries (colombia and mexico) in the americas that have much higher crime AND police killings relative to the others. There is one country (Canada) that only has a relatively higher police killing rate. There is one country (U.S.) that has a much higher police killing rate and a slightly higher murder rate.

6

tech_polpo t1_is7uii2 wrote

Colombia is only in the OECD because culturally we're obsessed with showing off abroad. We shouldn't be there.

1

landertxia93 t1_is8udr5 wrote

That is not the purpose of the OECD. Colombia get's support from rich nations to improve security and development and since we are so alligned with the West, we are eligible, just like Chile or Mexico.

2

tech_polpo t1_isbzw1p wrote

¿Usted realmente se cree esa mentira de que nos ayudan? No se le olvide que la OCDE dijo que el salario mínimo es muy alto y que los impuestos a las empresas son altos. Para ellos el papel aguanta todo, no ven la realidad, solo viven de indicadores, les importa un pepino el Colombiano de a pie. Santos nos metió ahí para poder sacar pecho en el exterior, por qué a él solo le importaban los indicadores y no la gente.

1

landertxia93 t1_iscamjs wrote

Pero es que es verdad que el salario mínimo es muy alto y también los impuestos a las empresas.

Lo primero es una de las causas de nuestra inflación y lo segundo es empíricamente demostrable: ningún otro país en la OECD tiene impuestos a las sociedades tan alto como el nuestro; ni siquiera Chile.

0

tech_polpo t1_iscbptv wrote

¿Realmente le parece que 1,000,000 COP es un salario digno? Lo invito a salirse de la burbuja y darse un paseo por las calles de semejante país tan desigual como lo es Colombia. Ojalá se hiciera una redistribución de la riqueza y en consecuencia inversiones, en salud, en educación, en infraestructura en ciencia y tecnología. Cosas que hicieron los ricos hace décadas y que sentaron las bases para la prosperidad de la que gozan. Los ricos vienen al sur a decir cosas inhumanas y muchos transnochandos desde sus burbujas les celebran por qué solo leen indicadores. En fin... Ojalá petro haga algo medianamente bueno para ver si algún día dejamos de ser una sociedad tan arrastrada.

1

pizzagarrett t1_is8gddh wrote

The fact that China isn’t even on here especially with their current genocide leads me to believe the data is missing some important info?

1

kkngs t1_is8i95o wrote

Misleading to stretch the x-axis by a factor of 100

1

xantharia t1_is9ddad wrote

Seems it would be better to have "Police Killings Per Police Officers" -- i.e. to measure how dangerous is the average policeman you need to divide police killings by the number of policemen.

1

twisted_cistern t1_is9dnau wrote

I think what you want is what you said but the vs. goes on the x axis. Y axis vs. X axis.

1

egowritingcheques t1_is9o150 wrote

All I see is a whole heap of freedom on the right-hand side. Mexico, USA and Columbia are the most free countries in the world.

1

Lil_Delirious t1_isa5b2u wrote

The fact that the cops in America kill more people than criminals is sad.

1

BrasilianEngineer t1_isalfb0 wrote

What would a police killings per homicide (instead of per capita) look like?

I would expect that graph to correlate, and any outliers or non correlation to be particularly interesting.

1

Speedking2281 t1_isao821 wrote

I have no doubt whatsoever that all of the countries to the left of the United States have a less violent and more law-abiding populous overall.

1

shiningPate t1_isbcrpn wrote

What is this type of chart called? e.g one where entities are plotted on a grid where the two axes are two different attributes of the entities?
Can ms excel generate this type of graphic?

1

sukkibds t1_islkzrm wrote

Can someone do one of these for "guns per capita" vs "police killings per capita"

1

GJMOH t1_is7vk4w wrote

I wonder what murder of cops looks like.

0

Insect_Jaded t1_is84r90 wrote

The bottom corner is countries where no one requires firearms because things are less violent in general as result of good statecraft, including but not limited to public welfare, universal healthcare, and justice reformation focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment leading to significantly lower reoffending rates for those incarcerated. Good if you don't want an always expanding for profit prison exploitation system. Fuck America.

0

jackbethimble t1_is93h6z wrote

The UK has the stingiest welfare and healthcare systems in Western Europe but the lowest murder rate. The actual difference in the justice system is much greater surveillance and much less concern for due process and the rights of the accused than in the US. The fact that European countries can get away with shorter sentences is due to the fact that these countries actually allow these cops to go catch criminals and lock them up. Of course they also are allowed to imprison people for social media shitposts so there is a genuine trade off. Japan has the lowest violent crime rate in the world and their justice system is largely based on coercing confessions out of people and skipping the trial.

−1

pingywen t1_is8yly6 wrote

There's nothing we can do about it.

0

CRUMPY627 t1_is8z3ub wrote

I hate that Canada is just slowly by proximity becoming America. I thought highly of us once upon a time.

0

decentishUsername t1_is98jn6 wrote

This is much better than an earlier post with a similar topic

0

Al13_slEDGE t1_isaarco wrote

Police killings are awful but this graph is incredibly misleading at first glance. Homicides are on a scale 100x smaller than police killings. This presentation makes it look like they’re almost as frequent as homicides. In reality it’s not even close.

0

shpydar t1_is7h1cj wrote

And people here in Canada are in an uproar because we recently banned assault weapons and banned the import of handguns due to our glaringly obvious gun problem.

The majority of us want to be with the cool kids like Australia, Denmark, France, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, but too many Canadian's have drunk the U.S. Right wing fascist movement coolaid that clogs up our media and the dumb dumbs want to make us more like the U.S.

(EDIT: the downvotes are proving my point about the uproar)

−1

DL_22 t1_is7iaze wrote

Canadians are upset at the ban because virtually all gun crime in Canada is committed using guns smuggled from the US and no legislation or action to curtail this has been brought forward.

In short, banning “assault weapons” (the government actually calls it “assault-style guns”; neither description actually describes any class of firearm accurately anyway) and handgun imports to legal owners does nothing to actually tackle the gun crime problem in Canada.

If they had paired this with, say, increasing smuggling enforcement on cross-border Indian Reserves there might be less of an uproar because that might actually make a dent in the problem.

1

PointOfFingers t1_is80l4o wrote

There is a benefit to banning assault weapons or whatever you want to call them. Weapons that can kill everyone in a cafe or church or classroom or parade or cinema before they can flee. If you force people to go to the black market for mass shooting weapons it will make it harder for teenagers and mentally ill people to get them as they don't have contacts in the black market. The last two US school mass shootings involved an 18 year old walking into a gun store and legally buying an AR-15 and hundreds of rounds of ammunition - they had school shooter starter kits on sale.

2

kazmerb t1_is882z8 wrote

They didn’t have “school shooter starter kits” on sale you fucking idiot, stop lying.

3

SlagathorTheProctor t1_is8o7lo wrote

Yes, this ban is like lowering a speed limit from 80 km/h to 50 km/h because somebody is driving at 120 km/h.

0

shpydar t1_is7pcan wrote

Your use of the pejorative term “Indian” explains your views better than anything else you said.

Also if you had bothered to read my link on banning the import of handguns you would have learned that the new legislation includes

>* Fighting gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes, and strengthening border security measures.

As well since the new legislation and funding there have been major gun smuggling arrests that occured on Indigenous lands.

−3

Ragnarotico t1_is7m73l wrote

Based on what I am seeing in the chart, it appears that the US has a relatively low homicide rate but a relatively high Police killings rate compared to other countries in the analysis.

−1

breakfasteveryday t1_is7r5py wrote

It's well behind Mexico and Columbia, but much higher than most of Europe, Japan, and Australia.

6

Chanderule t1_is9ahow wrote

What, how is over 2* as many homicides a "relatively low homicide rate"?

4

marioquartz t1_is72hej wrote

USA have 10x the crime rate of my country.

The most safe county of USA is more dangerous thant the most dangerous of my country.

−7

alc4pwned t1_is7fno9 wrote

Safest US county has a homicide rate of 0. So in order to beat that you need to be reanimating the dead or something?

11

IncidentalIncidence t1_is74s4b wrote

I highly doubt that, since crime in the US is highly concentrated into very specific geographical areas. Not to go full Fox News, but there's that stat they love to pull out that "removing the top 5% of most dangerous US counties would drop the US murder rate to 2.5/100k".

There are a lot of counties in the US that have homicide rates of 0/100k.

6

PedestrianDM t1_is79h17 wrote

>since crime in the US is highly concentrated into very specific geographical areas.

No, that is a false claim. High Crime rate per capita is not limited to only 5% of counties.

Here is a map of homicide rate by US county made by a fellow redditor.

2

IncidentalIncidence t1_is7bnvs wrote

>High Crime rate per capita is not limited to only 5% of counties.

I didn't actually say that it was.

And without a data source and year, that map is absolutely useless. It has my county wrong (2.1, but shaded as 4+)

5

PedestrianDM t1_isa2woy wrote

the OP did not provide his data source, but it was posted in 2019. The trend is at least on-par with any other map of similar crime statistics.

Point being: crime is fairly diffuse throughout the US, and there are no counties that experience "0/100k" homicide rates.

edit: here is the post in question. feel free to reach out to them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/er763t/homicide_rate_by_county/

0

IncidentalIncidence t1_isa63b6 wrote

lol. you fucking people will believe anything as long as as it confirms what you think you know.

Fine, you have no data. Let's look at the actual numbers.

If you download the 2021 County Health Data from UW Madison (which is aggregated from the National Center for Health Statistics' Mortality Files), you can count how many counties have a homicide rate of 0.

Here's the download page: https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/explore-health-rankings/rankings-data-documentation

in "2021 County Health Rankings Data - v1.xlsx" we can go to the table "Additional Measure Data", and look at collumn FY. There we can see how many counties were had homicide rates that were 0 or statistically insignificant (which we know from the documentation means less than 10 homicides in total over the 7-year time period that was used to for the average). if we put in a formula =COUNT(FY1:FY3195), it spits out our answer: 1351 of the 3195 counties in the survey had a homicide rate that was either 0 or too low to be statistically representative.

1