Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

In an effort to reduce the number of gunrelated homicides, some cities have run buyback programs in which the police offer cash (often $$\$ 50$$ ) to anyone who turns in an operating handgun. Chance magazine looked at results from a four-year period in Milwaukee. The table on the next page shows what types of guns were turned in and what types were used in homicides during a four-year period. Write a few sentences comparing the two distributions. $$ \begin{array}{l|c|c} \text { Caliber of gun } & \text { Buyback } & \text { Homicide } \\ \hline \text { Small }(.22, .25, .32) & 76.4 \% & 20.3 \% \\ \text { Medium }(.357, .38,9 \mathrm{~mm}) & 19.3 \% & 54.7 \% \\ \text { Large }(.40, .44, .45) & 2.1 \% & 10.8 \% \\ \text { Other } & 2.2 \% & 14.2 \% \end{array} $$

Short Answer

Expert verified
Small guns dominate buybacks; medium guns dominate homicides, showing different distributions.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Problem

This problem involves comparing two percentages from different datasets: guns turned in during a buyback program and guns used in homicides. The goal is to see the differences in distributions between the two groups.
02

Analyze the Buyback Data

The buyback data shows that 76.4% of the guns were small caliber, 19.3% were medium caliber, 2.1% were large caliber, and 2.2% were other types. This indicates that small caliber guns were the most frequently turned in during the buyback program.
03

Analyze the Homicide Data

In the homicide data, 20.3% of the guns used were small caliber, 54.7% were medium caliber, 10.8% were large caliber, and 14.2% were other types. The medium caliber guns are the most frequently used in homicides.
04

Compare the Two Distributions

Comparing the two distributions, there is a significant difference in the types of guns between buyback and homicide data. Small caliber guns dominate the buyback data, whereas medium caliber guns are more prevalent in homicides. This suggests that the type of guns turned in does not closely match those involved in homicides.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Data Analysis
Data analysis is a critical process that involves interpreting and examining datasets to extract useful information. In the context of gun buyback programs, data analysis helps us understand trends and patterns in weapon calibers being turned in versus those used in crimes.
By analyzing buyback and homicide data, we gain insights into gun ownership, and usage patterns, and can identify areas of focus to reduce gun violence. Here, we closely examine the proportion of different caliber guns either turned in or used in homicides over a four-year period in Milwaukee.
  • The first step in data analysis is to understand the underlying question or problem. In this case, it involves comparing two sets of percentages: guns handed in during buyback programs versus those involved in homicides.
  • To extract meaningful information, it is crucial to break down each dataset and identify patterns or discrepancies. These observations can guide policymakers in their efforts to reduce gun violence.
  • Summarizing data with percentages or visual aids can make interpretation more accessible and actionable.
Caliber Categories
Caliber categories refer to the classification of firearms based on the size of their ammunition, often described by the diameter of the bullet.
  • For gun buyback and homicide statistics, firearms are usually differentiated into small, medium, and large calibers.
  • Small calibers include .22, .25, and .32 guns. They are often considered to have lower stopping power and are frequently turned in during buyback events (76.4% in Milwaukee). However, they account for a smaller percentage in homicide data (20.3%).
  • Medium calibers, such as .357, .38, and 9mm, have more stopping power. They are more commonly associated with criminal activity, evidenced by their 54.7% presence in homicide cases in Milwaukee's data.
  • Large calibers, like .40, .44, and .45, are powerful but less frequently used in both buyback (2.1%) and homicide statistics (10.8%).
Understanding the distinctions between these categories and their respective roles in buybacks and homicides can help to tailor interventions more effectively.
Homicide Statistics
Homicide statistics provide insights into the types of firearms used in violent crimes, guiding interventions and prevention strategies. From analyzing Milwaukee's data:
  • Medium-caliber firearms appear the most in homicide statistics, comprising 54.7% of all guns used in such incidents. This underscores their significant role in gun-related crimes.
  • Other types, which could include unclassified calibers or homemade firearms, consist of 14.2% of gun homicide cases, suggesting a need for broader tracking and regulation.
  • By comparing this alongside buyback data, one can see a stark contrast between the calibers of guns turned in and those actually used in homicides. Specifically, small-caliber weapons are more frequently surrendered but are less commonly used in homicides, indicating that buyback programs may not address the calibers often involved in violent crimes.
Such analyses highlight the importance of aligning gun control efforts with homicide statistics to more effectively mitigate gun violence.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Here's another table showing information about 120 movies released in 2005 . This table gives percentages of the table total: a) How can you tell that this table holds table percentages (rather than row or column percentages)? b) What was the most common genre/rating combination in 2005 movies? c) How many of these movies were PG-rated comedies? d) How many were G-rated? e) An editorial about the movies noted, "More than three-quarters of the movies made today can be seen only by patrons 13 years old or older." Does this table support that assertion? Explain.

Can you design a Simpson's paradox? Two companies are vying for a city's "Best Local Employer" award, to be given to the company most committed to hiring local residents. Although both employers hired 300 new people in the past year, Company A brags that it deserves the award because \(70 \%\) of its new jobs went to local residents, compared to only \(60 \%\) for Company B. Company B concedes that those percentages are correct, but points out that most of its new jobs were full-time, while most of Company A's were part-time. Not only that, says Company \(B\), but a higher percentage of its full-time jobs went to local residents than did Company A's, and the same was true for part-time jobs. Thus, Company B argues, it's a better local employer than Company \(\mathrm{A}\). Show how it's possible for Company B to fill a higher percentage of both full- time and part-time jobs with local residents, even though Company A hired more local residents overall.

Twenty-six countries won medals in the 2006 Winter Olympics. The table lists them, along with the total number of medals each won: $$ \begin{array}{l|c|l|c} \text { Country } & \text { Medals } & \text { Country } & \text { Medals } \\\ \hline \text { Germany } & 29 & \text { Finland } & 9 \\ \text { United States } & 25 & \text { Czech Republic } & 4 \\ \text { Canada } & 24 & \text { Estonia } & 3 \\ \text { Austria } & 23 & \text { Croatia } & 3 \\ \text { Russia } & 22 & \text { Australia } & 2 \\ \text { Norway } & 19 & \text { Poland } & 2 \\ \text { Sweden } & 14 & \text { Ukraine } & 2 \\ \text { Switzerland } & 14 & \text { Japan } & 1 \\ \text { South Korea } & 11 & \text { Belarus } & 1 \\ \text { Italy } & 11 & \text { Bulgaria } & 1 \\ \text { China } & 11 & \text { Great Britain } & 1 \\ \text { France } & 9 & \text { Slovakia } & 1 \\ \text { Netherlands } & 9 & \text { Latvia } & 1 \end{array} $$ a) Try to make a display of these data. What problems do you encounter? b) Can you find a way to organize the data so that the graph is more successful?

An article in the Winter 2003 issue of Chance magazine reported on the Houston Independent School District's magnet schools programs. Of the 1755 qualified applicants, 931 were accepted, 298 were waitlisted, and 526 were turned away for lack of space. Find the relative frequency distribution of the decisions made, and write a sentence describing it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov) lists causes of death in the United States during 2004: $$ \begin{array}{l|c} \text { Cause of Death } & \text { Percent } \\ \hline \text { Heart disease } & 27.2 \\ \text { Cancer } & 23.1 \\ \text { Circulatory diseases and stroke } & 6.3 \\ \text { Respiratory diseases } & 5.1 \\ \text { Accidents } & 4.7 \end{array} $$ a) Is it reasonable to conclude that heart or respiratory diseases were the cause of approximately \(33 \%\) of U.S. deaths in \(2003 ?\) b) What percent of deaths were from causes not listed here? c) Create an appropriate display for these data.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free