« Embedding logic | Main | Cutting through the noise »


Sam Adams

I have to say, I really like the original chart. The graphics personalize it, draw me in, and focus on the disproportionate number of older white males committing suicide. It made me want to go analyze the data, something that few charts can do.

Jon Peltier

This is the kind of data that requires more than one chart, the "multiple levels of aggregation" cited by Kaiser. The NYT graphic has tried to put everything into one graphic, and one motivation seems to be the use of bullet images as the main graphical element.

Kaiser's line chart shows the breakdown of shooting deaths by age group and classification much more effectively than the original. Unfortunately the NYT graphic has left out information, indicated as "?" in Kaiser's labels.


The way age ranges are being used seems bad to me. There are four datapoints covering different spans of time: 17 years (<17), 7 years (18 to 25), 13 years (26 to 39), and 35+ (>40 -- and that's assuming a 75 year life span). How can those ranges be compared in any sort of useful way?


Coming from a culture less familiar with bullets, my first thought was "Why a chart of dildos?"


Mike, they would have some justifying to do if queried on those exact ages, but it's not wrong in general to have periods that are of different lengths, if those periods come with mental images of "types of citizen".

It's true that the 40+ group have a whole thirty five years in which to die by gunshots, while the 18-25 group have only seven, but if the survey is addressing and disputing a perception that 18-25 year olds suffer more gun deaths, then it's a legitimate way to group them IMO.

For a quick alternative that uses the available data, perhaps Kaiser or someone else could redesign the junkart version so that it normalises each group by the estimated number of years in the group, to see how that affects the story that the graph tells?


I agree with Mike. There is a strong correlation between the number of people in an age group and the number of people who get shot in that age group.

In a line chart which emphasizes comparisons between ages, all other significant variables should be kept constant between the groups. Ignoring the distribution of the underlying data items is misleading in this case.

The murder rate is much higher in the 18-25 group, but neither visualization shows this directly.

IB a Math Teacher

Thanks, Doire. I saw the same thing, but I'm glad that I'm not the only one!


Good observation on the baseline. Gives me an opportunity to rant against "per day" statistics, like "X people die from Y disease every day". (Not everyone is at risk of disease Y, and not every day is the same.) As pointed out here, the relevant basis is the distribution of population by age, not the fact that there are 365 days in a year.


I think both yours and the NYT graphics would benefit from a separate table or graph of the totals (numbers below guessed)

Suicides: 41
Homicides: 26
Accidents: 7

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
Marketing analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Columbia. See my full bio.

Book Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read

Good Books

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter