Every Picture Tells A Story - Redux

[CHS]

"I HIGHLY doubt that 70% of the US population has CCW's and carries regularly. "

I can't help it that you don't read the title.

I can read just fine. You're the one who's clear as mud.

Look, I understand your numbers now. But your labels are terribly named and/or misleading and like I said: Clear as mud.

YOU may think it's perfectly comprehensible, but the confusion displayed in this thread is pretty clear. You've got something to work on here. And being an *** about it isn't helping your case.

[RKV]

Pardon the repeat...

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."
Karl Popper

"Ditto graph."
RKV

So if its so wrong, can you do the reasonable thing and suggest better? That of course might mean reading the complete post where this originated and maybe looking at the published spreadsheet that supports the graph. Or is that too much to expect from a moderator?

[dantodd]

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."
Karl Popper

"Ditto graph."
RKV

So if its so wrong, can you do the reasonable thing and suggest better? That of course might mean reading the complete post where this originated and maybe looking at the published spreadsheet that supports the graph. Or is that too much to expect from a moderator?

Itispossible to help people understand your graph without acting like an arrogant prig, especially since the labels aren't perfectly clear.

[RKV]

Kind of funny

Dan, the comments on the blog where this was originally posted certainly don't follow this thread. The folks here apparently won't bother to follow the link and read the detail. Dave Hardy can get it, and so can Glenn Reynolds. For some reason, Calgunners not so much.

[Librarian]

I dunno why there is less than usual comprehension - seems entirely clear to me.

[dantodd]

It is not the fact that the axis label is not entirely clear, I and many others mderstood it. But CHS asked you a question because he didn't.

Uhhhhh, please help me understand these numbers because I HIGHLY doubt that 70% of the US population has CCW's and carries regularly.

Instead of answering the question you get very defensive and start attacking him for daring to ask. It makes you look petty and arrogant.

The axis label is not incorrect. Read the title.

"I HIGHLY doubt that 70% of the US population has CCW's and carries regularly. "

I can't help it that you don't read the title.

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."
Karl Popper

"Ditto graph."
RKV

Can you read? Apparently not.

Dan, the comments on the blog where this was originally posted certainly don't follow this thread. The folks here apparently won't bother to follow the link and read the detail. Dave Hardy can get it, and so can Glenn Reynolds. For some reason, Calgunners not so much.

I, and probably many others didn't bother to click through. The fact is pretty obvious and well covered in at least one of the CalGuns Foundation Amici briefs. I don't need to read one more reticle saying that there is o correlation between anti-gun laws and crime reduction.

[Bhobbs]

It says that 70% of the population lives in a shall issue or constitutional carry state.

[RKV]

"I, and probably many others didn't bother to click through" no kidding, huh? Nor could you be bothered to read the legend. But that's my problem and I'm a bad person for pointing out that you and others couldn't be bothered to read. Right. You and a few here did not, others here appear to be able to read (and willing to make a minimal investment of time in understanding an argument before spouting off). And I'm acting defensively. Sure.

[TwoAsoapbox]

Same team fellas...same team.

[TwoAsoapbox]

While this is a nice graph with some interesting data - DO NOT go around using this as "proof" that LTC issuance reduced crime. This is all correlation, not causation. Our side must maintain intellectually honesty and data integrity, even if the other side rarely does. It is good data, but there is zero proof here.

Agreed, it doesn't prove that a higher rate of LTC necessarily causes a decrease in crime but its solid evidence to prove that it doesn't cause an increase. This can also be said for increasing numbers of privately owned firearms in correlation with a dropping crime rate. I love it! Eat it Brady Campaign!

[CHS]

"I, and probably many others didn't bother to click through" no kidding, huh? Nor could you be bothered to read the legend. But that's my problem and I'm a bad person for pointing out that you and others couldn't be bothered to read. Right. You and a few here did not, others here appear to be able to read (and willing to make a minimal investment of time in understanding an argument before spouting off). And I'm acting defensively. Sure.

No, you're acting like a giant a-hole. Knock it off.

Yes, if one clicks through and reads the article it tells you that the 70% figure refers to 70% of the population living in states that allow them to get shall-issue or constitutional-carry CCW's. But your subject is "Every picture tells a story".

And if you want to tell a story with YOUR PICTURE, it's not very clear exactly what the 70% number refers to. I'd even go so far as to challenge why exactly you picked that particular number (probably because it's bigger and sounds better than the lowly 10%'ish or so of the population that actually HAS CCW's.) and stat versus other ones, but I'd hate for you to have an embolism.

Not sure why you're acting so defensive and d-bag'ish over some very simple honest questions and misunderstandings.

[RKV]

Simple honest questions? When you can't be bothered to follow a link? Profanity? I sure didn't start that. Look, I just don't care what you think. That post got over 10000 hits today because of the links from Instapundit and Dave Hardy at Of Arms and the Law. That's thousands of people who will get it, even if Calgunners can't be bothered to read the titles and legends, much less the rest of the post including caveats. Makes me wonder why I donate to Calguns.

[RKV]

"it doesn't prove that a higher rate of LTC necessarily causes a decrease in crime but its solid evidence to prove that it doesn't cause an increase." Thank you. Someone here bothered to read the rest of the post at No Lawyers Only Guns and Money.

[RKV]

"I dunno why there is less than usual comprehension - seems entirely clear to me." Thank you. If I didn't have another thread on this going at No Lawyers Only Guns and Money, I would think it was my problem. And I do want to communicate effectively. Seems the audience here today is just not on their usual game. More is the pity.

[TwoAsoapbox]

"it doesn't prove that a higher rate of LTC necessarily causes a decrease in crime but its solid evidence to prove that it doesn't cause an increase." Thank you. Someone here bothered to read the rest of the post at No Lawyers Only Guns and Money.

I actually didnt, its just simple logic that I already knew before this thread, I get it. Thanks for your efforts. We're all in this fight against gun control together.