Sorry, what is this saying? Why is it animated? What on earth is it?

In case of invasion Belarus will roll over faster than a horny Labrador.

The dotted line in the diagram marks the boundary of Paris.

Where is the data from? Which territories, languages? What do the colours signify? What is a 'keyword' - most mentioned?

Current rankings are 3,4,12 and 22

Although the data is to do with heat I feel a heatmap is not the best choice. A bar or line would have conveyed this data a lot better.

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).

There are 4 data sources. Check my first comment on this post.

I'm finding you quite rude and I'm going to ignore you from now on.

I'm no longer sure what point you're trying to make exactly. Better leave it there perhaps?

I have tried to account for that by including data for violent crime rate per state.

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

https://imgur.com/yamKZp1

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

What makes you say I'm ignoring the important cases? My data includes all police shooting fatalities.

All of this. Plus I suspect deep down fear plays a big part but that in itself is probably quite tightly related to crime rates and gun ownership.

What has that got to do with the original assertion that more training equals less fatal shootings?

Doesn't look like a clear one to me. What would you say the correlation is exactly?

The sources are all in my first comment on the post and there's no breakdown of types of training.

I'm directly pushing the argument that there's isn't a direct correlation between police fatal shootings and hours of training.

Unjust/just shootings have no bearing on this at all.

>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? :)

If you can point me in the direction of that data (which says which region a state is in) I can do that.

1. That there is no correlation is exactly my point in reply to the original post to which this is a reply - https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/ywowl8/us_states_police_training_v_shootingsviolent/
2. What you're calling a 'concocted' metric is actually a derived metric and is perfectly valid.

To think beyond the data of course serves a purpose to go and find more data that speaks to your next hypothesis.

I am OP

>There is no correlation

I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how you can be so confident that there is NO correlation between fatal shootings and the amount of training, just because this graphic isn't showing one.

I agree, there are problems linking the two sets together.