tommytornado OP t1_iwp9js7 wrote

Very true, and exactly why I did this to show that the previous graphic makes an assertion that isn't demonstrable with this data.

However it's worth noting that even though the thing we were looking for (the correlation) isn't possible here, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also even though the data looks useless it's usually possible to gather even more questions from the results (if not the answers yet).


tommytornado OP t1_iwlw6a4 wrote

This is a kernel density plot with the 'outliers' CT, HI, MN, ND, VT removed to clarify that central section.

Agreed, there does seem to be a bulge in the centre - around 650 hours, but still doesn't fully support the assertion that more training = less fatal shootings


tommytornado OP t1_iwlkegb wrote

>I’m saying, put up the data that supports the incredulity you have to the results of this current graph

The original graphic strongly implies more training = less fatal shootings. It doesn't appear to take into account population size, number of officers, or state crime rate.

My problem is just that. It a very limited dataset that draws an unsupported conclusion (the 'regression' line).

So I have posted here a graphic using extra data that shows no correlation.

Feel free to either go tattoo this on your ass now, or tell me what issue you have with it? :)


tommytornado OP t1_iwli20i wrote

  1. That there is no correlation is exactly my point in reply to the original post to which this is a reply -
  2. What you're calling a 'concocted' metric is actually a derived metric and is perfectly valid.