Unit VII Article Review Community Policing & Gang Prevention

Investigating the Relationship Between Gang Membership and Carrying a Firearm: Results from a National Sample

Henry B. Tigri1 & Shannon Reid2 & Michael G. Turner3 & Jennifer M. Devinney1

Received: 25 January 2015 /Accepted: 17 May 2015 / Published online: 29 May 2015 # Southern Criminal Justice Association 2015

Abstract While there is evidence that gang membership impacts an individual’s gun carrying proclivities, existing research has largely focused only on males and at-risk youth. The present study investigates the role of gang membership, peer gang mem- bership, and delinquency on whether individuals carry a firearm using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. Carrying a firearm was associated with involvement in delinquency, peer gang membership, and respondent gang membership. The association between gang membership and carrying a firearm weakened with age. Few significant differences across categories of sex and race emerged suggesting that the relationship between gang membership and carrying a firearm is equivocal across these groups.

Keywords Gang membership . Gun carrying . Delinquency. Violence

Despite documented decreases in rates of violent offending, gang-related violent crime remains a significant public concern. These issues are compounded by concerns around the use of firearms in the commission of these crimes. The FBI reported that in 2011 firearms were used in 68 % of murders, 41 % of robbery offenses and 21 % of aggravated assaults nationwide (FBI, 2012). According to the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS), approximately 13 % of all homicides in the United States are gang-

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 DOI 10.1007/s12103-015-9297-3

* Michael G. Turner [email protected]

1 Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina – Charlotte, 5062 Colvard Hall, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA

2 Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina – Charlotte, 5082 Colvard Hall, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA

3 Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina – Charlotte, 5070 Colvard Hall, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA

related (National Gang Center, 2014). In larger cities, the number of gang-related homicides is closer to 20 % (Pyrooz, 2012). Between 2011 and 2013 approximately half of the agencies reporting to the National Gang Center stated that they saw an increase in gang-related non-lethal violent crime (NGC, 2014). The majority of serious gang-related violence occurs with the use of a firearm. In fact, data reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that 92 % of gang-related homicides in 2008 involved the use of a firearm (Cooper & Smith, 2011). The national unease regarding gun violence in general, coupled with the concern around violent gang crime, reveals an area of research that deserves the additional attention by the scientific community.

The current body of literature has documented an association between gang membership and carrying a firearm. For example, Hayes and Hemenway (1999) found gang membership to be the strongest predictor of firearm carrying out of seven risk factors. Using a sample of high-risk adolescent males in Rochester, Lizotte, Howard, Krohn, and Thornberry (1997) found that gang members were eight times as likely as non-members to carry a hidden gun. To investigate whether gangs foster gun carrying or if gang members are those individuals with pre-existing involvement in gun violence, Bjerregaard and Lizotte (1995) reviewed firearm use before, during, and after gang membership and found evidence that gang-membership fosters increased involvement in the gun subcul- ture, as well as an indication of a recruitment standard in which gangs seek out those with firearm proclivities. In subsequent research, Lizotte, Krohn, Howell, Tobin, and Howard (2000) conducted a study investigating the effects of variables such as gang membership, drug use, and drug selling on gun carrying. Results indicated that adolescent males who were involved in gangs, sold drugs, or had peers who carry guns were more likely to carry concealed guns than those who do not share these experiences. Taken together, research appears to have consistently documented that gang membership and gun carrying coexist with gang member- ship temporally preceding gun carrying.

Despite the consistency of these findings, there are some notable limitations to the existing literature on this subject. First, most studies have focused on city- based or regional samples with high-risk populations that have limited generaliz- ability (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Lizotte et al., 2000; Lizotte et al., 1997; Bennett & Holloway, 2004; Sheley & Wright, 1993; Spano, Freilich, & Bolland, 2008). While focusing on high-risk samples has the benefit of yielding larger samples of gang members and those who carry guns, the external validity of these studies is jeopardized since these youths may be more predisposed to carry a gun. Second, research investigating the relationship between gang membership and gun carrying has primarily focused on males (Lizotte et al., 2000; Lizotte et al., 1997; Luster & Oh, 2001; Sheley & Wright, 1993). The Luster and Oh (2001) study utilizes the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), but also limits their study to males. While males make up the majority of gang members, the exclusion of female gang members in these studies is often an empirical oversight rather than an absence of female membership (Peterson, 2012). As such, insight into the role that gang membership plays on female firearm carrying remains an important empirical question. This neglect also prevents an exploration of whether the covariates associated with carrying a gun vary across categories of sex.

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 169

The present study builds upon the extant research by investigating the relationship between gang membership and gun carrying across sex and race over an extended period of the life course. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), we investigate the impact that gang membership has on an individual’s illegal gun carrying tendencies, as well as explore whether the impact of gang mem- bership on gun carrying varies across sex and race. If gang membership promotes illegal gun carrying, our study would support intervention programs that aim to reduce gang membership, thus limiting subsequent effects on gun carrying. We begin with a review of the current literature that has investigated the relationship between gang membership and carrying a firearm. To frame this discussion, we first discuss the broader risk factors for illegal gun carrying and then focus on the intersection of gang membership and gun carrying.

Risk Factors of Illegal Gun Carrying

Research has shown that youths who carry and own guns for sport purposes are a distinctly different group than those who own or carry guns for illegitimate purposes (Lizotte et al., 1994; Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995). For example, Sheley and Wright (1993) found that delinquent youth overwhelmingly owned handguns and sawed off shotguns for protection from crime and for the commission of crime. The authors also found that 55 % of juvenile inmates stated they regularly carried guns compared to 12 % of high school students (Sheley & Wright, 1993). Youth and young adults are more likely to carry guns illegally when engaged in the drug trade (Sheley & Wright, 1993; Lizotte et al., 1997, 2000), because their friends carried a gun (Sheley & Wright, 1993; Sheley & Brewer, 1995; Webster, Gainer, & Champion 1993; Lizotte et al., 1997), in the commission of a crime (Sheley & Wright, 1993; Sheley & Brewer, 1995), and when they have an arrest record (Webster et al., 1993). Violent behavior and victimization each have strong connections to illegal gun carrying (Spano & Bolland, 2013; Spano, Pridemore, & Bolland, 2011). Exposure to violence can also include acquiring a gun due to a perceived need for protection (Sheley & Wright, 1993; Sheley & Brewer, 1995; Spano et al., 2011; Spano & Bolland, 2013). Gang membership has also been shown to consistently be a correlate of illegal gun carrying (Lizotte et al., 1997, 2000; Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Decker, Pennell, & Caldwell, 1996; Bennett & Holloway, 2004; Luster & Oh, 2001; Hayes & Hemenway, 1999). Youth are also more likely to carry a gun if a friend or relative was in a gang (Luster & Oh, 2001).

Gang Membership and Gun Carrying

Theoretically, the current study relies on Anderson’s (1999) street code to help under- stand the link between gang membership and gun carrying. Street code, where violence is supported and potentially normative, is considered a cultural adaptation to negative neighborhood structural conditions, family characteristics, and pervasive racial discrim- ination. Since disadvantaged neighborhoods offer fewer legitimate opportunities for youth to obtain traditional social statuses and roles, street gangs provide alternatives for status attainment that focus on physical power or domination, verbal agility, or displays of material wealth (Anderson, 1999; Rose, 1994; Vigil, 1988; Wilkinson, 2001). Vigil

170 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

(1988) has discussed how street gangs socialize their members to internalize and adhere to a set of alternative norms and behaviors.

Using the lens of street code, the intersection of gun carrying and gang members can be better understood since guns may have both instrumental and symbolic purposes. Gun carrying for instrumental purposes is clearer since perceived threat from rival gang members can influence a gang member’s decision to carry a gun to protect themselves and their neighborhoods (Decker, 1996; Horowitz, 1987; Lizotte et al., 1994; Wright & Rossi, 1986), as can a gang member’s criminal activity (Decker, 1996; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith & Tobin, 2003). The symbolic reasons for gun carrying are less clear but often focused on identity formation and the aforementioned street codes. Anderson (1999) observed that one way for youth, and gang members in particular, to attain status is to develop a reputation for being violent. In terms of gun carrying, guns help gang members project their violent identities. As Kubrin (2005: 363) argues, BThe gun becomes a symbol of power and a remedy for disputes.^ Bjerregaard and Lizotte (1995: 42) also consider that Bjuveniles are socialized into the gun culture by virtue of their gang membership and activity.^

Membership in a youth gang has been found to increase the amount of criminal activity committed by an individual (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Hill et al., 1999; Peterson, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2004). Gang members also commit a disproportionate amount of crime and violent crime in particular (for review see Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, & Chard-Wierschem, 1993). Due to the level of criminal activity perpetrated by gang members, the use of guns by this group is especially concerning. For example, Klein, Maxson, and Cunningham (1991) found that gang homicides were significantly more likely to involve a gun compared to non-gang homicides. Both quantitative and qualitative studies have shown that gang members are often armed with a gun (Decker, 1996; Sheley & Wright, 1993; Lizotte et al., 1997, 2000; Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Bennett & Holloway, 2004; Luster & Oh, 2001). Over the course of their 3-year study, Decker (1996) reported that 81 % of the 99 gang members they interviewed stated they owned guns. Of these gang members, two-thirds had used their gun at least once.

Lizotte et al. (2000) investigated the relationship between gang membership, gun carrying, and drug selling. The sample used for the analysis was 617 high-risk male juveniles from the Rochester Youth Development Survey (RYDS). The results indicate that gang membership and drug selling are both highly related to gun carrying, although gang membership is the strongest predictor at younger ages (Lizotte et al., 2000). As individuals age, the relationship loses strength and the effects of membership exist only for the immediate situation. It is theorized that these aging effects may be due to younger members carrying firearms to gain status. In a second study using the RYDS data, Lizotte et al. (1997) examined gun carrying prevalence by gun type and the effects of carrying on the propensity to commit crime and found that being a gang member increases one’s odds of gun carrying by 7 or 8 fold. Individuals who carried for sport were fundamentally different from individuals who were carrying illegally. Once again, the same age- related trend—weakening effects as individuals aged—took place in this study (Lizotte et al., 1997). Bjerregaard and Lizotte (1995) sought to determine if gang membership promotes gun carrying, or if a selection criteria exists in which gangs recruit those who already carry guns. The data also revealed that there are both gun promotion effects as well as recruitment effects (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995).

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 171

In other words, those already involved in gun carrying to some degree were more likely to join the gang, which in turn enhanced the gang member’s gun carrying proclivities.

Two studies have investigated gun carrying at both the individual and group levels using incarcerated populations. Sheley, Zhang, Brody, and Wright (1995) found that groups that were more formally structured as a gang possessed higher gang criminality in each category measured, including gun carrying (Sheley et al., 1995). Gang struc- ture, gang drug selling, and gang robbery were all predictive of higher rates of gun carrying by the gang. At the individual level, these same factors possessed identical effects. Interestingly, individuals reporting that fellow gang members carried a firearm were more likely to carry a gun themselves suggesting some group effects on individual gun carrying proclivities. In fact, gun carrying was the only individual criminality factor that was impacted by the gang’s behaviors. Watkins, Huebner, and Decker (2008) explored whether gun possession, frequency of gun carrying, and actually firing the gun were impacted by an individual’s membership within a gang. The results indicated that gang membership was the strongest of ten predictors of gun carrying (Watkins et al., 2008). The likelihood of gun possession and gun carrying increased by five times for juvenile gang members and six times for adult members.

While these studies have added greatly to our understanding of the relation- ship between gang membership and gun carrying, most of these studies use narrow populations for their sample. The majority of these studies use either high-risk populations (Decker et al., 1996; Lizotte et al., 2000; Spano et al., 2011; Spano & Bolland, 2013), incarcerated populations (Sheley & Wright, 1993, 1995), all male populations (Hayes & Hemenway, 1999; Lizotte et al., 1997, 2000; Luster & Oh, 2001) or use only one racial designation (Webster et al., 1993; Spano et al., 2008, 2011; Spano & Bolland, 2013). There have been limited studies that use samples drawn from a general population. One of these was a national survey of male high school students, conducted by Sheley and Wright (1998). Eight percent of the respondents were gang members. The results were consistent with those reported from high-risk samples with gang membership increasing the odds of gun possession and carrying (Sheley & Wright, 1998). Specifically, gang members carried revolvers, handguns, and sawed-off shotguns more frequently than non-gang members. Finally, Hayes and Hemenway (1999) conducted a survey of 3153 high school students in Massachusetts, and included both males and females. The results showed that gang membership was the single best predictor of gun carrying at the bivariate level and remained a significant factor at the multivariate level (Hayes & Hemenway, 1999). The overlap of gang membership and gun carrying con- tinues to be a concern for public safety and public health officials and the use of target populations limits our understanding of this problem.

Current Focus

Although it generally weakens with age, the extant research clearly shows a positive association between gang membership and carrying a firearm. The present study extends this research by investigating the association between being a member of a gang and carrying a firearm with data drawn from a national sample

172 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

of adolescents. In our analyses, we also include a segment of the population (females) for whom we know little about in terms of their gun carrying habits. We also explore whether an individual’s illegal gun carrying tendencies, as well as whether the impact of gang membership on gun carrying varies across categories of sex and race. We accomplish these objectives using the NLSY97, a longitudinal sample of individuals from the general population, which allows us to include one-wave lagged effects for each of our predictor variables. This strategy permits an assessment of whether the current and prior levels of the exogenous variables impact the change in the wave-to-wave gun carrying measure (see Lizotte et al., 2000). We turn now to a discussion of the methods used in our research.

Methods

The data for this study were drawn from the NLSY97, a nationally representative longitudinal survey of youth sponsored by the US Department of Labor and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The NLSY97 is comprised of a sample of 8984 youth who had reached the age of 12 to 16 as of December 31, 1996. The data are derived from a two-stage sampling design with housing units designated as the primary unit and eligible individuals as the secondary unit (Moore et al., 2000). More specifically, the overall sample consists of two independently selected, stratified multistage probability samples: (1) a cross-sectional sample (n=7,335), and (2) an oversample of African-American and Hispanic individuals (n=2,473). The cross-sectional sample was designed to be a self-weighting representation of US households with adolescents between the ages of 12 and 16 as of December 31, 1996. Consistent with past research, the present study excludes individuals in the oversample and only uses the individuals within the cross-sectional sample to maintain national representation while avoiding reliance on sampling weights (Brame, Turner, Paternoster, & Bushway, 2012; Brame, Bushway, Paternoster, & Turner, 2014). This study also only relies on data collected during waves 1 through 5, after which point some of the participants had reached age 18, which is the legal age to carry a gun in many states. Only those individuals completing a valid interview during each of the first five waves (n=5,018) were included in the study. Research has indicated that attritors in the NLSY97 tend to have higher earnings and wage rates than those respondents who remained in the survey (Aughinbaugh & Gardecki, 2007).

Dependent Variable

Gun Carrying Prevalence

In waves 2 through 5, respondents were asked BHave you carried a hand gun since the last interview on [date of last interview]? When we say hand gun, we mean any firearm other than a rifle or shotgun.^ Response options were 0 = ‘no’ and 1 = ‘yes.’ This question allowed us to compile a history of each individual’s approximately 12-month gun carrying status from wave 2 when subjects were between ages 13 and 17 to wave 7 when all subjects had reached age 18.

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 173

Independent Variables

Pre-existing Gun Carrying Experiences

Studies have documented the positive association of prior gun carrying experiences with present gun carrying experiences (Lizotte et al., 2000). We measure pre-existing gun carrying experiences to control for time-1 heterogeneity in respondents’ initial inclination to carry a firearm. In wave 1 of the data collection, respondents were asked, BHave you ever carried a hand gun? When we say hand gun, we mean any firearm other than a rifle or shotgun.^ Response categories were designated as 0 = ‘no’ and 1 = ‘yes.’ This measure provides a control for involvement in gun carrying that may have occurred prior to each of the outcomes described below.

Gang Membership

Several variables were identified as predictors of illegal gun carrying. During each wave of the study, interviewers provided respondents with the following definition of a gang: Ba group that ‘hangs out’ together, wears distinctive colors or clothes, has set clear boundaries of its territory or ‘turf,’ and/or protects its members and turf against other rival gangs through fighting or threats (NLSY97 User’s Guide, 2002).^ In wave 1, gang membership was assessed by asking participants, BHave you ever belonged to a gang?^ Responses were coded as 0 = ‘no’ and 1 = ‘yes’. In waves 2 through 5, respondents were asked, BHave you been a member of a gang since the last interview date on [date of last interview]?^ Again, responses were 0 = ‘no’ and 1 = ‘yes’.

Peer Gang Membership

In wave 1, participants were also asked ‘what percentage of kids [in your grade /in your grade when you were last in school] [belong /belonged] to a gang that does illegal activities?’ Responses were 1 = ‘Almost none (less than 10 %),’ 2 = ‘About 25 %,’ 3 = ‘About half (50 %),’ 4 = ‘About 75 %,’ 5 = ‘Almost all (more than 90 %).’ This measure was employed in this study because it is likely that peers may socialize survey participants into the gang subculture, although the participant is not formally in a gang.

Delinquency

To measure previous delinquent activity, we focused on three areas: violent crime, property crime, and illegal drugs. For wave 1, the violence measure was assessed with a single question, BHave you ever attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them or have a situation end up in a serious fight or assault of some kind?^ This question was repeated in all subsequent waves. All questions in waves 2 through 5 were again led by the statement, BSince the date of the last interview…^. Responses for both questions were coded 0 = ‘no’ and 1 = ‘yes’.

To measure property crime, we created an index combining four survey questions: BHave you ever purposely damaged or destroyed property that did not belong to you?^, BHave you ever stolen something from a store or something that did not belong to you worth less than 50 dollars?^, BHave you ever stolen something from a store, person or

174 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

house, or something that did not belong to you worth 50 dollars or more including stealing a car?^, BHave you ever committed other property crimes such as fencing, receiving, possessing or selling stolen property, or cheated someone by selling them something that was worthless or worth much less than what you said it was?^ For waves 2 through 5 these same questions were preceded by the qualifier, BSince the date of the last interview…^. Once again, responses to both questions were coded 0 = ‘no’ and 1 = ‘yes’. These acts were then used as an index ranging from 0 to 4.

To measure drug involvement, we created an index combining several questions. During wave 1, respondents were asked, BHave you ever used marijuana, for example: grass or pot, in your lifetime?^ and BHave you ever sold or helped sell marijuana (pot, grass), hashish (hash) or other hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine or LSD?^ In all subsequent waves, respondents were asked these same two questions as well as, BHave you ever used any drugs like cocaine or crack or heroin, or any other substance not prescribed by a doctor, in order to get high or to achieve an altered state?^ All questions in waves 2 through 5 were led by the statement, BSince the date of the last interview…^. Again, all responses were coded 0 = ‘no’ and 1 = ‘yes’. Consistent with the property crime assessment, these responses were used to create a three-item index ranging from 0 to 3 (only 1 to 2 for wave 1) denoting the number of activities in which the participant identified involvement. A delinquency index combining each of the items measuring drug, property, and violent offending was created to capture an overall rate of delinquency reported by the respondent.

Statistical Analysis

The associations between the predictor variables and carrying a firearm were estimated by means of multivariate logistic regression analysis. We included one-wave lagged effects for each of our predictor variables as well as initial levels of gun carrying. Including the lagged effects permits an assessment of the levels and changes in these exogenous variables on the change in the wave-to-wave gun carrying measure (see Lizotte et al., 2000). The associations were quantified by calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). P<.05 was the standard level of statistical significance. A series of coefficient comparison tests were subsequently performed to assess differences across categories of race and sex (see Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

Findings

As illustrated in Table 1, the mean age of respondents at wave 1 was 13.86. By wave 5, the mean age of those interviewed was 18.88. Just under one-third (30 %) of the participants were non-white, and the sample had an equal percentage of males and females, allowing for examination of effects across categories of race and sex. Preva- lence rates of the independent and dependent variables during wave 1 were higher than subsequent waves as survey questions in that wave assessed if the participant had Bever^ participated in the act in question. In each of the subsequent years, respondents were asked if that act had taken place since the date of the last interview, only capturing

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 175

an approximately 12-month period. At the time of the first interview, nearly one in ten (9 %) participants had illegally carried a handgun. This number dropped to 4 % by wave 5. One in 20 (5 %) participants reported that they had ever been in a gang at wave 1, and this value decreased to approximately 1 % of all participants reporting gang membership in the final wave. Consistent with these results, those with peers involved in gangs also decreased rapidly from 18 to 6 %. The delinquency measure reports the prevalence rates of involvement in categories of property crime, drugs, and violence that have been combined into one variable. Delinquent acts diminished over time, beginning with 0.52 and ending at 0.35.

Table 2 illustrates that in the overall sample, those who carry guns are involved in significantly more delinquency than those who do not carry guns. The overall results were consistent across each demographic, with males and non-whites showing a slightly stronger relationship than females and whites. It should be noted that the temporal ordering of whether a delinquent lifestyle leads to gun carrying or if gun carrying entices one into committing delinquent acts cannot be determined in this analysis. That is, it remains unclear whether carrying a gun is instrumental to the delinquent involvement or a symbolic outcome of one’s involvement in delinquent offenses.

Table 3 presents the results of several logistic regression equations predicting gun carrying in waves 2 through 5. The wave 1 equation was not estimated because lagged variables could not be included as predictors. The results indicate that gang member- ship, peer gang membership, and involvement in delinquency each exhibited signifi- cant and positive effects on gun carrying across waves 2 through 5. As expected, while the delinquency measure was the most consistent (ORs ranging from 1.76 to 2.83) in attaining significance across all 4 waves, gang membership appears to be the strongest. In fact, significant odds ratios for gang membership ranged from 3.45 to 4.23. In addition, 3 of the 4 estimates of gang membership were significantly associated with gun carrying (the p values for the remaining gang membership estimate was just beyond .05). The peer gang membership measure also attained significance in 3 of the 4 waves and the odds ratios ranged from 1.41 to 2.23. Interestingly, the peer gang membership reached statistical significance in the one wave that the gang membership failed to reach significance. Combined, these results generally suggest that current gang

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study sample

Variable Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Age 13.86 (1.39) 15.85 (1.43) 16.82 (1.43) 17.89 (1.44) 18.88 (1.43)

Race (1 = ‘nonwhite’, 0 = ‘white’) 0.30 (0.46) Same for all waves

Sex (1 = ‘male’, 0 = ‘female’) 0.50 (0.50) Same for all waves

Gun carrying (1 = ‘yes’, 0 = ‘no’) 0.09 (0.29) 0.06 (0.25) 0.05 (0.21) 0.04 (0.20) 0.04 (0.20)

Gang membership (1 = ‘yes’, 0 = ‘no’) 0.05 (0.21) 0.02 (0.14) 0.01 (0.12) 0.01 (0.12) 0.01 (0.09)

Peer gang membership (1 = ‘yes’, 0 = ‘no’) 0.18 (0.38) 0.12 (0.33) 0.09 (0.29) 0.08 (0.28) 0.06 (0.24)

Delinquency 0.52 (0.50) 0.40 (0.49) 0.37 (0.48) 0.37 (0.48) 0.35 (0.48)

176 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

membership and current peer gang membership were important contributors to a respondent’s involvement in carrying a gun.

As expected, the gun carrying lagged effect remained positive and statistically significant throughout the 4 waves under analysis. This finding suggests that past gun carrying experiences significantly and positively predicted present gun carrying. Two of the peer gang membership lagged estimates were positively significant indi- cating peer gang membership in the past wave significantly (and positively) influenced gun carrying in the present wave. Finally, two of the lagged gang membership variables were significantly negatively related to gun carrying. This unexpected finding suggests that at least for two waves, prior gang membership significantly reduced current levels of gun carrying.

Table 4 presents the results of logistic regressions predicting gun carrying within each sex. The results are largely consistent with those of Table 3, showing that delinquency and gang membership are all positively associated with carrying a gun, although there are some notable differences. When separated by categories of sex, the relationship between peer gang membership and gun carrying loses strength and is only significant in two waves for females and in one wave for males. As would be expected, gang membership remains significantly and positively associated with gun carrying. The noteworthy finding here is that the impact of gang membership on carrying a firearm is strong for both sexes in early adolescence yet appears to diminish during late adolescence. For females, gang membership was significant in two of the four waves with the significant ORs ranging from 3.60 to 19.63. For males, gang membership was once again significant in three waves but the significant ORs ranged from only 2.99 to

Table 2 Prevalence of delinquency by gun carrying status

Variable Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Overall sample

(Carried a gun) 0.79‡ (0.40) 0.71‡ (0.46) 0.64‡ (0.48) 0.66‡ (0.48) 0.56‡ (0.50)

(Did not carry a gun) 0.50 (0.50) 0.38 (0.48) 0.36 (0.48) 0.36 (0.48) 0.34 (0.48)

Male

(Carried a gun) 0.79‡ (0.41) 0.71‡ (0.45) 0.63‡ (0.48) 0.65‡ (0.48) 0.55‡ (0.50)

(Did not carry a gun) 0.56 (0.50) 0.41 (0.49) 0.38 (0.49) 0.40 (0.49) 0.38 (0.48)

Female

(Carried a gun) 0.83‡ (0.44) 0.70‡ (0.46) 0.67‡ (0.48) 0.70‡ (0.47) 0.63‡ (0.49)

(Did not carry a gun) 0.38 (0.50) 0.35 (0.48) 0.34 (0.47) 0.32 (0.47) 0.31 (0.46)

White

(Carried a gun) 0.76‡ (0.43) 0.65‡ (0.48) 0.59‡ (0.49) 0.63‡ (0.49) 0.49† (0.50)

(Did not carry a gun) 0.50 (0.50) 0.39 (0.49) 0.32 (0.48) 0.38 (0.49) 0.36 (0.48)

Nonwhite

(Carried a gun) 0.87‡ (0.34) 0.87‡ (0.34) 0.75‡ (0.43) 0.71‡ (0.46) 0.69‡ (0.47)

(Did not carry a gun) 0.50 (0.50) 0.34 (0.47) 0.32 (0.47) 0.30 (0.48) 0.30 (0.46)

*P<.05; †P<.01; ‡P<.001

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 177

3.73. We should caution the reader that odds ratios were likely significantly influenced by low prevalence rates of gang involvement and carrying a firearm, especially for female respondents. Coefficient comparison test results revealed no significant differ- ences between males and females across any of the gang membership variables. Only the wave 3 lagged gang membership coefficients produced a significant difference among males and females with the latter having a significantly more positive effect.

Table 3 Logistic regressions predicting gun carrying among the full sample

Variable Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

OR OR OR OR

[95 % CI] [95 % CI] [95 % CI] [95 % CI]

Age 0.94 [0.85–1.02] 0.98 [0.88–1.08] 1.11 [0.99–1.24] 1.16† [1.04–1.30]

Race 0.74* [0.55–0.99] 0.91 [0.66–1.24] 1.02 [0.73–1.44] 0.97 [0.69–1.38]

Sex 3.49‡ [2.55–4.76] 3.92‡ [2.74–5.60] 4.33‡ [2.89–6.49] 5.20 [3.39–7.97]

Peer gang membership 1.63† [1.16–2.28] 2.21‡ [1.48–3.30] 1.41 [0.89–2.25] 2.23† [1.36–3.67]

Gang membership 3.76‡ [2.16–6.53] 4.23‡ [2.19–8.16] 3.45‡ [1.75–6.82] 2.45 [0.95–6.29]

Delinquency 2.83‡ [2.11–3.80] 1.76‡ [1.27–2.43] 2.53‡ [1.77–3.61] 1.81‡ [1.27–2.59]

Gun carrying (Lagged) 4.89‡ [3.67–6.52] 4.77‡ [3.39–6.71] 6.22‡ [4.25–9.10] 10.40‡ [7.19–15.03]

Peer gang membership (Lagged) 1.05 [0.76–1.47] 1.66† [1.13–2.44] 1.79† [1.15–2.79] 1.15 [0.70–1.88]

Gang membership (Lagged) 0.66 [0.39–1.12] 0.40* [0.18–0.87] 0.40* [0.16–0.98] 0.77 [0.32–1.84]

Delinquency (Lagged) 0.91 [0.67–1.23] 1.23 [0.88–1.71] 1.07 [0.76–1.51] 0.91 [0.63–1.31]

−2 log likelihood 1896.58 1543.75 1363.33 1353.76 Pseudo R2 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.22

*P<.05; †P<.01; ‡P<.001

Table 4 Logistic regressions predicting gun carrying by sex

Variable Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

OR OR OR OR

M F M F M F M F

Age 0.96 0.88 10.3 0.77* 1.13 1.03 1.15* 1.23

Race 0.75 0.76 0.75 1.70 1.02 1.01 0.86 1.87

Peer gang membership 1.33 2.82† 2.49‡ 1.46 1.41 1.39 2.05 3.95*

Gang membership 3.73‡ 3.60* 2.99† 19.63‡ 3.61‡ 2.75 2.40 1.37

Delinquency 2.96‡ 2.38* 1.70† 2.13 2.30‡ 4.01† 1.69† 3.04*

Gun carrying (Lagged) 4.75‡ 6.18‡ 4.69‡ 6.07‡ 6.15‡ 6.39† 10.97‡ 4.06

Peer gang membership (Lagged) 1.01 1.18 1.83† 1.04 1.71* 2.17 1.31 0.50

Gang membership (Lagged) 0.60 0.79 0.43 0.16 0.40 0.45 0.70 3.75

Delinquency (Lagged) 0.82 1.22 1.08 2.23* 1.07 1.04 0.88 1.08

−2 Log likelihood 1424.64 461.64 1171.87 352.41 1067.54 293.28 1080.93 263.87 Pseudo R2 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.18 0.09

*P<.05; † P<.01; ‡ P<.001

178 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

Given these results, we conclude that the association between gang membership and carrying a firearm is equal across categories of sex.

The lagged variables showed weaker effects when separated into categories of sex. The only consistently significant predictor of gun carrying was gun carrying in the previous year. Once again, this impacted females more than males with female ORs ranging from 6.07 to 6.39, while males ranged from 4.69 to 10.97. Interestingly, the lagged effects of gang membership, peer gang membership, and delinquency had minimal to no effects on whether males or females carried a firearm.

Table 5 presents the results of logistic regressions predicting gun carrying within each race. Again, the results are relatively consistent with the findings presented in Table 3 where the association of delinquency and gang membership are positively associated with carrying a gun. A few differences, however, are worth noting. First, the peer gang membership variables appear to have a consistently positive association with gun carrying for whites, especially at younger ages. However, none of the peer gang membership variables for non-whites were significant. Second, with one exception for whites, involvement in delinquency has a strong and positive association with gun carrying across whites and non-whites for each of the waves under analysis. Finally, and pertinent to our interests here, gang membership has a consistently positive association with gun carrying for individuals in both racial groups at younger ages, however, this relationship disappears in the last wave under analysis. Coefficient comparison test results revealed no significant differences between whites and non- whites across the gang membership variables. Similar to the sex-specific analysis, these results suggest that the association between gang membership and carrying a firearm is relatively equal across categories of race.

Similar to the sex-specific models, the lagged variables showed weaker effects when separated into categories of race. Again, the only lagged variable that retained a

Table 5 Logistic regressions predicting gun carrying by race

Variable Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

OR OR OR OR

W NW W NW W NW W NW

Age 0.91 1.05 1.00 0.94 1.11 1.12 1.20† 1.09

Sex 3.55‡ 3.11‡ 5.11‡ 2.37† 4.22‡ 4.43‡ 6.53‡ 3.69‡

Peer gang membership 1.88† 1.32 2.72‡ 1.56 1.54 1.37 2.38* 1.77

Gang membership 3.89‡ 3.36† 3.48† 5.08† 4.84‡ 2.65* 2.18 2.60

Delinquency 2.11‡ 8.34‡ 1.44 3.15‡ 2.27‡ 3.38‡ 1.56* 2.98‡

Gun carrying (Lagged) 5.41‡ 3.36‡ 5.06‡ 3.72‡ 7.73‡ 3.42‡ 15.12‡ 3.80‡

Peer gang membership (Lagged) 0.97 1.21 1.85* 1.53 2.07* 1.44 1.38 1.02

Gang membership (Lagged) 0.51 1.00 0.31* 0.51 0.21* 0.78 0.92 0.81

Delinquency (Lagged) 0.97 0.84 1.10 1.66 1.02 1.26 0.79 1.25

−2 Log likelihood 1404.91 470.93 1081.78 447.46 926.28 429.67 878.38 455.17 Pseudo R2 0.21 0.30 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.20

* P<.05; † P<.01; ‡ P<.001

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 179

significant and positive effect on carrying a firearm was carrying a firearm in the prior year. While the lagged effects of prior gun carrying were strong for both whites and non-whites, these effects appeared to become stronger over time. Similar to the sex- specific models, the lagged effects of gang membership, peer gang membership, and delinquency had minimal to no effects on whether whites and non-whites carried a firearm.

Discussion

Gang-related violence accounts for a significant proportion of today’s violent offending. Unfortunately, much of this violence involves the use of firearms. The extant research has found that gang members are much more likely to illegally carry firearms than non-gang members (Sheley & Wright, 1993; Lizotte et al., 1997, 2000; Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Bennett & Holloway, 2004; Luster & Oh, 2001). In fact, studies have shown that becoming a gang member fosters increased gun carrying habits (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995). Carrying a firearm has also been shown to be associated with delinquency related to drug use and property crimes (Lizotte et al., 1997, 2000; Sheley & Wright, 1993). The present study contributes to this literature by investigating the association between gang membership and carrying a firearm during adolescence. We further investigate whether these associations are consistent across categories of race and sex. Four key findings emerge from the present study.

First, consistent with much of the prior literature on high-risk samples, the data indicate that gang membership has a significant and positive association with respon- dents carrying a firearm illegally. This association is stronger during early adolescence, when gang membership has a higher prevalence rate, compared to later adolescence, when gang membership is on the decline. This relationship remained even after controlling for several other important covariates measured during the current wave and the prior wave under analysis. It is also notable that of the non-demographic covariates, gang membership was consistently the strongest factor associated with carrying a firearm.

Second, the association between gang membership and carrying a firearm was somewhat inconsistent across categories of sex. Male gang membership had a strong positive association with carrying a firearm in early adolescence, however, this rela- tionship weakened as male gang members moved closer to adulthood. Female gang membership almost mirrored the male relationship identically having stronger effects at younger ages. Third, the association between gang membership and carrying a firearm was also somewhat consistent across categories of race. White and non-white gang membership corresponded with a positive association with carrying a firearm in early adolescence, but not in later adolescence.

Finally, the results of the coefficient comparison tests suggested that the impact of gang membership on carrying a firearm is relatively equal across categories of sex and race. Stated differently, while gang membership improves our understanding of wheth- er an individual carries a firearm, this relationship is relatively equal across males and females and whites and non-whites. Combined, these findings suggest that reducing gang involvement, particularly during adolescence, could have a significant impact on whether all categories of individuals illegally carry a firearm.

180 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

Intense debate has occurred over the merits of carrying a firearm. For decades, criminologists have maintained that gun carrying is part of a risky lifestyle that exposes individuals to a range of adverse consequences (Blumstein, 1995; Lizotte & Bordua, 1980; Lizotte, Tesoriero, Thornberry, & Krohn, 1994; Steinman & Zimmerman, 2003). For example, Webster et al. (1993) found that inner-city middle school students who were arrested, especially those arrested for drug charges, possessed a higher probability of carrying a firearm. In a carefully designed case control study, scholars have found that homicide victims were more likely to have a family history of purchasing handguns and the basic act of acquiring the firearm was found to increase the odds of a violent death (Cummings, Koepsell, Grossman, Savarino, & Thompson, 1997; also see Kellermann et al., 1993; but see Kleck, 2001). In short, advocates in this camp claim that individuals who carry a gun increase the odds they will become a victim.

An alternative view is that acquisition of and carrying a firearm increases guardian- ship and therefore reduces the risk of victimization (Correa, 2001; Kleck, 1988; Kleck & Gertz, 1996; Klepper & Nagin, 1989; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Analyzing data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), Southwick (2000) found that victims who used a gun possessed a higher probability of reducing their losses and avoiding serious injury. Similarly, Wells (2002) has also found that defensive gun use was unrelated to the risk of physical injury to the victim. In short, advocates in this camp claim that individuals who carry a gun are perceived to be in a better position to defend against becoming a victim of crime.

While our study does not take a position in this debate, we do corroborate the prior literature identifying a solid positive association between being a gang member and carrying a firearm. As such, we encourage the implementation of intervention programs to reduce gang membership (Koffman, Ray, Berg, Covington, Albarran, & Vasquez, 2009; Orton, Patrick, Cordwell, Truswell, & Wormith, 2012; Viens, 2014). Prevention and intervention programs targeting key risk factors related to the individual, their peers, their family, their school, and their communities have consistently been found to reduce gang entry as well as enhance desistance from a gang (Howell, 2011; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2010; Sweeten, Pyrooz, & Piquero, 2013).

Despite the contributions of our study, we acknowledge several limitations. First, the measure of gun carrying was a dichotomous variable that simply asked if one had carried a firearm at any point during the reference period. The frequency of gun carrying was therefore not observed in the present study. Therefore, it remains impossible to separate the proportion of respondents who carried a gun during an isolated incident from those who carried on a regular basis. Second, gang Bmembership^ had no clear operational definition. One may consider him or herself as belonging to a gang without being a validated member of that gang, due to association with validated members or limited involvement in the gang’s activities. Third, the present study only explored illegal gun carrying over a restricted period of the life course (i.e., late adolescence and early adulthood). Future studies should aim to explore the illegal gun carrying behaviors of respon- dents at later points in adulthood.

In closing, this study expands upon current research regarding the impact of gang membership on illegal gun carrying. We are unaware of any other study that uses a nationally representative sample to investigate this relationship across categories of sex and race. Our results indicate that gang members are more likely to illegally carry guns

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 181

than non-gang members. We have also found that this effect varies across categories of sex and race and is dependent on the timing of the measure of gun carrying. These results suggest that interventions to reduce gang membership and gun carrying might be most beneficial during the adolescent period of development.

References

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street. New York: Norton. Aughinbaugh, A., & Gardecki, R. (2007). Attrition in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bennett, T., & Holloway, K. (2004). Gang membership, drugs and crime in the UK. British Journal of

Criminology, 44(3), 305–323. Bjerregaard, B., & Lizotte, A. J. (1995). Gun ownership and gang membership. The Journal of Criminal Law

and Criminology, 86, 37–58. Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. The Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology, 86, 10–36. Brame, R., Bushway, S. D., Paternoster, R., & Turner, M. G. (2014). Demographic patterns of cumulative

arrest prevalence by ages 18 and 23. Crime and Delinquency, 60(3), 471–486. Brame, R., Turner, M. G., Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2012). Cumulative prevalence of arrest from

ages 8 to 23 in a national sample. Pediatrics, 129, 21–27. Cooper, A. & Smith, E. L. (2011). Homicide trends in the United States, 1980-2008. Bureau of Justice

Stastistics (BJS). Department of Justice. Reports & Trends. Washington, DC: BJS, 36. Correa, H. (2001). An analytic approach to the study of gun control policies. Socio-Economic Planning

Sciences, 35(4), 253–262. Cummings, P., Koepsell, T. D., Grossman, D. C., Savarino, J., & Thompson, R. S. (1997). The association

between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. American Journal of Public Health, 87(6), 974–978.

Decker, S. H. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends, and violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Decker, S. H., Pennell, S., & Caldwell, A. (1996). Arrestees and Guns: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms

Market-Final Report. Washington, District of Columbia: National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice.

Esbensen, F. A., & Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology, 31(4), 565–589.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2012). Crime in the United States, 2011. Hayes, D. N., & Hemenway, D. (1999). Age within school class and adolescent gun carrying. Pediatrics, 103,

e64. Hill, K. G., Howell, J. C., Hawkins, J. D., & Battin-Pearson, S. R. (1999). Childhood risk factors for

adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(3), 300–322.

Horowitz, R. (1987). Community tolerance of gang violence. Social Problems, 34(5), 437–450. Howell, J. C. (2011). Gang prevention: an overview of research and programs. Darby: DIANE Publishing. Kellermann, A. L., Rivara, F. P., Rushforth, N. B., Banton, J. G., Reay, D. T., Francisco, J. T., et al. (1993).

Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine, 329(15), 1084–1091.

Kleck, G. (1988). Crime control through the private use of armed force. Social Problems, 35, 1. Kleck, G. (2001). Can owning a gun really triple the owner’s chances of being murdered? The anatomy of an

implausible causal mechanism. Homicide Studies, 5(1), 64–77. Kleck, G., & Gertz, M. (1996). Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a

gun (vol 86, pg 158, 1996). The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(2), U7. Klein, M. W., Maxson, C. L., & Cunningham, L. C. (1991). Crack, street gangs, and violence. Criminology,

29(4), 623–650. Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989). The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment

revisited. Criminology, 27(4), 721–746.

182 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

Koffman, S., Ray, A., Berg, S., Covington, L., Albarran, N. M., & Vasquez, M. (2009). Impact of a comprehensive whole child intervention and prevention program among youths at risk of gang involve- ment and other forms of delinquency. Children and Schools, 31(4), 239–245.

Kubrin, C. E. (2005). Gangstas, thugs, and hustlas: Identity and the code of the street in rap music. Social Problems, 52(3), 360–378.

Lizotte, A. J., & Bordua, D. J. (1980). Firearms ownership for sport and protection: Two divergent models. American Sociological Review, 45, 229–244.

Lizotte, A. J., Howard, G. J., Krohn, M. D., & Thornberry, T. P. (1997). Patterns of illegal gun carrying among young urban males. Valparaiso University Law Review, 31, 375.

Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Howell, J. C., Tobin, K., & Howard, G. J. (2000). Factors influencing gun carrying among young urban males over the adolescent-young adult life course. Criminology, 38, 811– 834.

Lizotte, A. J., Tesoriero, J. M., Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (1994). Patterns of adolescent firearms ownership and use. Justice Quarterly, 11(1), 51–74.

Luster, T., & Oh, S. M. (2001). Correlates of male adolescents carrying handguns among their peers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 714–726.

Moore, W., Pedlow, S., Krishnamurty, P., & Wolter, K. (2000). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) Technical Sampling Report. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.

National Gang Center. (2014). National Youth Gang Survey Analysis. Retrieved December 2014 from http:// www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis. Accessed 7 Dec 2014.

NLSY97 User’s Guide: A Guide to the Rounds 1–4 Data: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. (2002). Columbus: Ohio State University, Center for Human Resource Research. Retrieved December 7, 2014. http://www.bls.gov/nls/97guide/rd5/nls97ugall.pdf.

Orton, L., Patrick, G., Cordwell, T., Truswell, K., & Wormith, J. S. (2012). Process Evaluation of the Saskatoon STR8UP Program: Evaluation Report.

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.

Peterson, D. (2012). Girlfriends, gun-holders, and ghetto-rats? Moving beyond narrow views of girls in gangs. In Delinquent Girls (pp. 71–84). New York: Springer.

Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2004). Gang membership and violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 793–815.

Pyrooz, D. C. (2012). Structural covariates of gang homicide in large US cities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(4), 489–518.

Pyrooz, D. C., & Decker, S. H. (2011). Motives and methods for leaving the gang: Understanding the process of gang desistance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(5), 417–425.

Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., & Webb, V. J. (2010). The ties that bind: Desistance from gangs. Crime and Delinquency, 60, 491–516.

Rose, T. (1994). Black noise: Rap music and black culture in contemporary America. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

Sheley, J. F., & Brewer, V. E. (1995). Possession and carrying of firearms among suburban youth. Public Health Reports, 110(1), 18.

Sheley, J. F., & Wright, J. D. (1993). Gun acquisition and possession in selected juvenile samples. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Sheley, J. F., & Wright, J. D. (1995). In the line of fire: Youths, guns, and violence in urban America. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.

Sheley, J. F., & Wright, J. D. (1998). High school youths, weapons, and violence: A national survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Sheley, J., Zhang, J., Brody, C. J., & Wright, J. D. (1995). Gang organization, gang criminal activity, and individual gang members’ criminal behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 76(1), 53–68.

Southwick, L., Jr. (2000). Self-defense with guns: The consequences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(5), 351– 370.

Spano, R., & Bolland, J. (2013). Disentangling the effects of violent victimization, violent behavior, and gun carrying for minority inner-city youth living in extreme poverty. Crime and Delinquency, 59(2), 191–213.

Spano, R., Freilich, J. D., & Bolland, J. (2008). Gang membership, gun carrying, and employment: Applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Quarterly, 25(2), 381–410.

Spano, R., Pridemore, W. A., & Bolland, J. (2011). Specifying the role of exposure to violence and violent behavior on initiation of gun carrying: A longitudinal test of three models of youth gun carrying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 158–176.

Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184 183

Steinman, K. J., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2003). Episodic and persistent gun-carrying among urban African- American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(5), 356–364.

Sweeten, G., Pyrooz, D. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 469–500.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., & Chard-Wierschem, D. (1993). The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 55–87.

Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gang membership and delinquency: gangs in developmental perspective.

Viens, A. (2014). Empowering Youth for Academic Success A hybrid of PASS: Promoting Achievement and Student Success Gang and Violence Prevention/Intervention.

Vigil, J. D. (1988). Group processes and street identity: Adolescent Chicano gang members. Ethos, 16(4), 421–445.

Watkins, A. M., Huebner, B. M., & Decker, S. H. (2008). Patterns of Gun acquisition, carrying, and use among juvenile and adult arrestees: Evidence from a high‐crime city. Justice Quarterly, 25(4), 674–700.

Webster, D. W., Gainer, P. S., & Champion, H. R. (1993). Weapon carrying among inner-city junior high school students: Defensive behavior vs aggressive delinquency. American Journal of Public Health, 83(11), 1604–1608.

Wilkinson, D. (2001). Violent events and social identity: Specifying the relationship between respect and masculinity in inner-city youth violence. Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, 8, 231–265.

Wright, J. D., & Rossi, P. H. (1986). The armed criminal in America (p. 2). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Henry B. Tigri is currently attending the Kenan Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill as a candidate for a Master of Accounting degree. He received his B.A in Criminal Justice and Psychology from the University of North Carolina – Charlotte. His research interests generally involve understanding the motivating factors behind illegal firearm carrying. Mr. Tigri has recently published in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.

Shannon E. Reid is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She received her Ph.D. in Criminology, Law and Society from the University of California, Irvine. Her research interests are focused around juvenile delinquency, including gang membership and incarceration. Most recently, she has been studying the egocentric friendship networks of incarcerated youth. Dr. Reid is also engaged in the international study of gangs as part of the Eurogang Project. She has been published in Criminology, Violence and Victims, and the Journal of Experimental Criminology.

Michael G. Turner is a Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of North Carolina - Charlotte. He received his Ph.D. in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati. His research interests generally involve understanding how delinquency and victimization evolve over the life course. Most recently, he has been engaged in research investigating the long-term effects of experiencing repeated bully victimizations. Over the past decade, Dr. Turner has secured funds to evaluate several problem behaviors experienced by youths including binge drinking, gang involvement, and bullying. He has recently published in Pediatrics, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Jennifer M. Devinney received a B.A. in Criminal Justice and Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research interests generally involve understanding the effects of bullying on individuals’ mental health.

184 Am J Crim Just (2016) 41:168–184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.