Florida had a striking increase between 2003 and 2008 that isn’t reflected by California or Texas. Did something specific happen in Florida in that timeframe?
Texas seems to have been on a long-term downward trend until 2013 (while Florida was spiking). The subsequent upward trend is mirrored by Florida, but not California.
What does “age-adjusted” mean?
Does “per 100,000” refer to the entire population, or the population under 25? If the former, could some of the differences be accounted for by changing demographics?
Does “per 100,000” refer to the entire population, or the population under 25? If the former, could some of the differences be accounted for by changing demographics?
So if I understand that right, the “per 100,000” figures aren’t for the exact populations, but for what the populations would be if the age groups were re-weighted to keep the age demographics constant?
Some thoughts:
Florida had a striking increase between 2003 and 2008 that isn’t reflected by California or Texas. Did something specific happen in Florida in that timeframe?
Texas seems to have been on a long-term downward trend until 2013 (while Florida was spiking). The subsequent upward trend is mirrored by Florida, but not California.
What does “age-adjusted” mean?
Does “per 100,000” refer to the entire population, or the population under 25? If the former, could some of the differences be accounted for by changing demographics?
2005 would have been when Stand Your Ground was implemented, other than that I’m not sure — could be related to the housing crisis as well.
That’s what age-adjustment prevents.
So if I understand that right, the “per 100,000” figures aren’t for the exact populations, but for what the populations would be if the age groups were re-weighted to keep the age demographics constant?
Right, it imposes the collected data on a chosen model population. I wish it told you what that population was, but I don’t see it.