No. Homicides have still raised by 15% in 2024. This is a graph of rate increase in homicides, not of homicides. It’s the second derivative (see speed vs acceleration)
Percent changed compared to 2015 would be better, but choosing a graph like this makes no sense if it would have been change yoy and also if that were the case then starting at 0% makes no sense.
The graph you are responding to clearly shows that murders are decreasing. The graph in OP also indicates this.
Your last point is only partially correct - the police state does grow every year, but the rate of increase is absolutely dependent on the administration. The Wars on minorities “Drugs and Terror” were each started under Republicans, and the current one is actively and intentionally making the police state much worse.
But, according to this graph, homicide was still 15% higher in 2024 compared to 2015.
Note the axis intercept - “0%” corresponds to the 2015 homicide rate. If 2026 were to drop to 0% on this graph, that would not mean 2026 matched 2025 - it would mean 2026 matched 2015.
It should be fairly obvious that this graph indicates this. If homicide climbed 10%-50% every year, compound interest would put the homicide rate at well over triple the rate it was in 2015.
At the same time, derivatives are known to be noise amplifiers. Second derivative even more so.
I fear the author wanted to talk about apples, the measurements didn’t agree, so kept taking derivatives until the graph agreed with their bias. Why else talk about change in change of apples?
As always, misinformation has been spread, tweet succesfull ✅️
You might be correct but you are clearly in an area of expertise that is beyond mine, so I’m going to let the other folks arguing about it argue about it. 🙂
No. Homicides have still raised by 15% in 2024. This is a graph of rate increase in homicides, not of homicides. It’s the second derivative (see speed vs acceleration)
That’s not correct. There were 15% more homicides in 2024 than in 2015 but the homicide rate went down since the peak of the 2020 crime wave.
deleted by creator
Percent changed compared to 2015 would be better, but choosing a graph like this makes no sense if it would have been change yoy and also if that were the case then starting at 0% makes no sense.
deleted by creator
Murder rate
- Merriam-Webster (emphasis mine)
Both police killings and murders are increasing, but police murders are increasing faster year over year than homicides are increasing.
Regardless of the administration, the US is increasingly a police state controlled by an oligarchy.
alwayshasbeen.jpeg
but the gloves are coming off though for sure
The graph you are responding to clearly shows that murders are decreasing. The graph in OP also indicates this.
Your last point is only partially correct - the police state does grow every year, but the rate of increase is absolutely dependent on the administration. The Wars on
minorities“Drugs and Terror” were each started under Republicans, and the current one is actively and intentionally making the police state much worse.Its not year on year, all datapoints are the rate against 2015’s rate.
Seems like the same 2020 high happened in Sweden, UK, Netherlands, … (1). Perhaps covid (and lockdown) related?
No. You are not reading the graph correctly, please confirm your statistics before trying to correct others.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2023-crime-in-the-nation-statistics
Homicide has fallen year over year from 2021.
But, according to this graph, homicide was still 15% higher in 2024 compared to 2015.
Note the axis intercept - “0%” corresponds to the 2015 homicide rate. If 2026 were to drop to 0% on this graph, that would not mean 2026 matched 2025 - it would mean 2026 matched 2015.
It should be fairly obvious that this graph indicates this. If homicide climbed 10%-50% every year, compound interest would put the homicide rate at well over triple the rate it was in 2015.
OK. Are both lines calculated with that same metric? If so it’s still apples to apples.
The legend states what you have pointed out.(no it doesn’t I misremembered, my bad) BUT STILL, maybe an editor thought the headline was too long?At the same time, derivatives are known to be noise amplifiers. Second derivative even more so.
I fear the author wanted to talk about apples, the measurements didn’t agree, so kept taking derivatives until the graph agreed with their bias. Why else talk about change in change of apples?
As always, misinformation has been spread, tweet succesfull ✅️
You might be correct but you are clearly in an area of expertise that is beyond mine, so I’m going to let the other folks arguing about it argue about it. 🙂
It’s not misinformation, nor is it the second derivative. It’s just comparing to 2015.
deleted by creator