Subject: Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples

  Gun Acquisition and Possession
  in Selected Juvenile Samples
  by Joseph F. Sheley, Ph.D., and James D. Wright,
Ph.D.

Violence committed by and against juveniles has
come increasingly to define the public's image of
the crime problem and the larger political debate
over anticrime policy. While evidence documenting
the growth of youth violence is abundant,
systematic research on the means and methods of
this violence is scarce.
 
This Research in Brief summarizes the results of a
study concerning the number and types of firearms
juveniles possess as well as where, how, and why
juveniles acquire and carry firearms. The findings
derive from responses to surveys completed by
selected samples of male inmates (mostly from
urban areas) in juvenile correctional facilities
in California, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Illinois
and male students in 10 inner-city public high
schools near the correctional institutions
surveyed.
 
The research focused on serious juvenile offenders
and on inner-city students because these groups
are popularly thought to engage in and experience
violence at rates exceeding those of most other
groups.1

The sites chosen reflect the few instances in
which the researchers gained dual entry into both
a State's juvenile correction system and at least
one adjacent, urban, local school district within
a reasonably parallel time period.

Method 

A total of 835 inmates in 6 of the respective
States' major correctional facilities (3 in
California, 1 each in the remaining States)
completed self-administered questionnaires in the
spring of 1991. Each site was a standard State
facility to which seriously troublesome youth were
remanded. The offenses characterizing the inmates
in these sites ranged from drug-related crimes
(generally trafficking in drugs) to homicide. All
but the New Jersey site, whose inmates had
profiles like those of inmates in the other
institutions, were maximum security facilities
(completely enclosed, guarded, razorwired). The
institutions' populations ranged from 172 to 850.
The percentage of inmates surveyed per institution
ranged from 22 to 62 (primarily a function of size
of institution), with a mean of 41 percent. 

The survey was introduced to the inmates as a
national study of firearms and violence among
youth. Participation in the study was voluntary
and anonymous, and respondents were given $5 to
participate in the project. In all of the
correctional facilities in question,
administrators announced the study to inmates in
all of the smaller facilities' dormitories and to
those in about half of the dormitories in the
larger facilities. The researchers then discussed
the project with them. An average of 95 percent of
the inmates addressed by the researchers agreed to
participate in the study. At each site, groups of
10 to 20 inmates at a time completed the
questionnaire.

In all cases, local high school administrators
viewed the topic of guns and violence among
students as politically charged. They consented to
the research only on the guarantee that their
districts and schools would not be identified in
the publication of the research results. Responses
were obtained from schools in large prominent
cities near the correctional facilities serving as
research sites. Enrollments in these schools
ranged from 900 to 2,100. 

Schools selected for study were identified by
local school board officials as inner-city schools
that had experienced firearms incidents in the
recent past and whose students likely encountered
gun-related violence (as victims, perpetrators, or
bystanders) out of school. No formal evidence is
available by which to document these claims.
However, interviews with the faculty and students
of these schools during the administration of the
survey confirmed the administrators' assessments.
In one school, surveyors observed a student taking
a gun from his jacket to examine it before
responding to a questionnaire item about caliber.
Moreover, in the time since administration of the
survey, four of the schools have experienced
violent episodes sufficient to gain national media
attention. 

The survey was introduced to students as it was to
the inmates'as a voluntary and anonymous national
study of firearms and violence among youth.
Spanish versions of the survey were offered to
students who desired them. Principals were asked
to grant the researchers access to 150 to 200
students in each of the schools entered and,
within the practical constraints faced by
principals and teachers to make the
sample"students in grades 9 through 12"as
representative of their pupils as possible. 

In six instances, principals arranged for the
survey to take place during homeroom periods.
These periods were uniform for the student body;
thus, theoretically, the study had access to the
entire student population. In two schools, the
survey was given during the physical education
hours, and in two schools, access was given to all
students enrolled in social studies courses. In
the former two sites, physical education was
mandatory and its hours were uniform for all
students; thus, here too, the study theoretically
had access to all students. In the latter two
sites access to the entire student body was
more limited. Approximately 95 percent of students
addressed by the researchers participated in the
study.

The number of students surveyed was 758, an
average of 165 per school (within a range of 109
to 229). The percentage of student populations
surveyed across schools ranged from 7 to 21 (with
a mean of 10 percent; lower percentages were a
function of larger schools). In some schools, the
survey was administered to groups of 20 to 30
students at a time. In others, it was given to
larger assemblies of 100 to 200 students. In 4 of
the 10 schools sampled, students were offered $5
to participate in the survey. Neither financial
inducement nor method of distribution more
generally was tied to the percentage of the
student body participating in the survey or to
response variation across questionnaire items. 

Validity, completeness, and consistency issues

With respect to sites more generally, responses to
the questionnaire items displayed some variation
across correctional facilities, as expected, but
reflected no systematic site-to-site patterns.
Site differences that did occur could most often
be reduced to a single site at variance with the
others concerning a given item; no one site
appeared conspicuously at odds across all items.

Missing data were expected given that the survey
was long, that time limits were imposed on some
respondents by their institutions, and that
respondents had been told that answering any given
item in the survey was discretionary. Despite
this, the average percentage of inmate respondents
who failed to complete both items in any set of
randomly cross-tabulated items was only 1.41
percent (literally, one case) within a range of
0.11 to 4.1 percent; for students the
corresponding figure was 3.1 percent within a
range of 0.7 to 3.9 percent. Additionally,
missing cases on the items used in the present
analysis were contrasted with responding cases
controlling for research site, race/ethnicity, and
age. Missing and responding cases differed little.
As a further check, all analyses reported below
were rerun substituting predicted values for all
missing cases.2 The results were substantially
unchanged.

Finally, though self-report data are absolutely
necessary to studies such as this one, they
inevitably raise issues of reliability and
validity. Attempts to establish level of
reliability in the present study centered on pairs
of items, the responses to which were checked for
logical consistency. For example, respondents who
claimed never to have owned a military-style
weapon at any time in their lives should not have
responded affirmatively to a later item regarding
ownership of such a weapon just prior to
incarceration. Fourteen such items were examined
for the inmate sample, and 11 were examined for
the student sample. Inconsistent responses
averaged only 2.4 percent within a range of 1.2 to
3.4 percent among the inmate respondents. For the
students, they averaged 1.5 percent within a range
of 0.7 to 3.1 percent. 

To determine how systematic were the
inconsistencies, each respondent was scored on the
number of inconsistent answers. Inmate respondents
received scores between 0 and 14; student
respondents received scores between 0 and 11. Only
4 percent of the inmates scored above 2; no inmate
scored above 6, and only one scored 6. Only 1
percent of the students scored above 2; no student
score exceeded 4. 

Validity was more difficult to assess, since there
were no official records against which to compare
the self-report data. However, indicative of
construct validation, respondents who attributed
respect from peers to ownership of a gun also felt
that friends would look down on them if they did
not carry a gun (r = 0.638 for inmates; 0.587 for
students). The level of use of heroin, crack, and
regular cocaine was associated with the extent of
commission of property crimes to gain drug money
(r ranges between 0.245 and 0.384 for inmates;
between 0.395 and 0.453 for students)--a finding
consistent with those of previous researchers.3 
As has been reported previously,4 marijuana seems
to have served as a gateway drug to heroin,
cocaine, and crack use for the respondents. Among
the inmate users of heroin, cocaine, and crack,
79, 80, and 76 percent, respectively, had also
used marijuana.

Among the student users of heroin, cocaine, and
crack, 76, 86, and 88 percent, respectively, had
also used marijuana. In sum, reliability levels
seem far above what might be expected for
respondents of the type surveyed in the present
study and for the subject matter of interest here.
Validity levels clearly fall within an acceptable
range, but see "Caveat."

Characteristics of respondents

The average inmate respondent's age was 17, and 84
percent of inmates were nonwhite. The modal
educational attainment level was 10th grade. More
than half of the inmates were from cities of at
least 250,000 residents. Half had committed
robbery; two-thirds had committed burglary. Among
the students, 97 percent were nonwhite, and the
mean age was 16. The modal educational attainment
level also was 10th grade. All of the student
respondents were from cities with populations
exceeding 250,000. As expected, the student sample
was far less involved in criminal activities.
Still, 42 percent of the students reported having
been arrested or picked up by the police at least
once; 22 percent had been arrested or picked up
"many" times; 23 percent reported having stolen
something worth at least $50. Nine percent
reported using a weapon to commit a crime.

Exposure to guns and violence 

Prior to examining the gun-related behaviors of
the respondents, one had to place those behaviors
in a larger social context. Inmates and students
alike inhabited social worlds characterized by
crime and violence. Four in 10 inmates had
siblings who had also been incarcerated, and 47
percent had siblings who owned guns legally or
illegally. More generally, 79 percent of the
inmates came from families in which at least some
of the males owned guns; 62 percent had male
family members who routinely carried guns outside
the home. The pattern was even sharper with
respect to the peers of the incarcerated
juveniles. Nine out of 10 inmates had at least
some friends and associates who owned and
carried guns routinely. 

Thus, in the street environment inhabited by these
juvenile offenders, owning and carrying guns were
virtually universal behaviors. Further, in this
same environment, the inmate respondents regularly
experienced threats of violence and violence
itself. A total of 84 percent reported that they
had been threatened with a gun or shot at during
their lives. Half had been stabbed with a knife. 

If the social world of the student sample was less
dangerous or hostile, it was only by comparison to
that of the inmates. A total of 69 percent of the
students had males in their families who owned
guns. Two out of five reported that males in their
families routinely carried guns outside the home.
Gun owning and carrying were also common among the
friends of the student respondents. More than half
(57 percent) of the respondents had friends who
owned guns; 42 percent had friends who routinely
carried guns outside the home. 

Like members of the inmate sample, the student
respondents were also frequently threatened and
victimized by violence. Forty-five percent had
been threatened with a gun or shot at on the way
to or from school in the previous few years. One
in 10 had been stabbed, and 1 in 3 had been beaten
up in or on the way to school. Nearly a fifth (17
percent) had been wounded with some form of weapon
other than a knife or a gun in or near the school.
Victimization aside, the study data also permit
some comment concerning violence in the inner-city
schools in which the students were surveyed.
Nearly a quarter (22 percent) of the surveyed
students reported that carrying weapons to school
was common. Nearly half (47 percent) personally
knew schoolmates at whom shots had been fired in
the previous few years. Fifteen percent personally
knew someone who had carried a weapon to school; 8
percent personally knew someone who had brought a
gun to school. 

The reality of violence in the respondents' worlds
shaped or was shaped by their attitudes about
violence. Both samples were asked a series of
questions about when they felt it was acceptable
("okay") to shoot someone. Response possibilities
were "strongly disagree," "disagree," "agree," and
"strongly agree." A total of 35 percent of the
inmates and 10 percent of the students agreed or
strongly agreed that "it is okay to shoot a person
if that is what it takes to get something you
want." Was it "okay to shoot some guy who doesn't
belong in your neighborhood?" Twenty-nine percent
of the inmates and 10 percent of the students
agreed or strongly agreed that it was. Elements of
insult and injury inevitably increased the
perceived acceptance of violent responses. It was
considered "okay [agree or strongly agree] to
shoot someone who hurts or insults you" by 61
percent of the inmates and 28 percent of the
students. 

Gun possession 

The media depiction of the firearms environment
for juveniles is one in which guns of all types,
even sophisticated military-style weapons, are
widely and easily available. The average
inner-city youth seemingly needs only to approach
a street source, pay but a few dollars, and depart
with a firearm. However, no one has systematically
documented any of these perceptions, especially
with respect to the types of guns youth are
obtaining. Table 1 presents findings concerning
gun possession among members of both samples; at
least with respect to the inmate group, the media
depiction is largely accurate. A total of 83
percent of the inmates owned at least one firearm
just prior to their confinement (67 percent
acquired their first gun by age 14). Two-thirds
(65 percent) owned at least three firearms just
before being jailed. Nearly a quarter of the
students (22 percent) possessed a gun at the time
the survey was completed. Six percent reported
owning three or more guns at the time of the
survey.

Carrying guns

Obviously, one need not actually own a gun in
order to carry one. Since most of the incarcerated
juveniles in the sample (83 percent) owned a gun
of their own at the time of their arrest, the
distinction may be relatively meaningless for
them. But it is easy to imagine high school
students who carry guns they do not own (for
example, guns that have been borrowed from or
otherwise made available by friends and family
members, possibly guns that are jointly owned by
multiple students). It is possible, in other
words, that focusing on ownership results
in an underestimation of the number of guns in the
hands of the students in the study. 

In fact, among the inmate sample, carrying a
firearm was about as common as owning one; 55
percent carried a gun "all" or "most of the time"
in the year or two before being incarcerated, and
84 percent carried a gun at least "now and then,"
with the latter figure nearly identical to the
percentage who owned a gun. Among the student
sample, carrying a gun at least occasionally was
more common than gun ownership. A total of 22
percent of the students owned a gun at the time of
the survey; 12 percent of them reported currently
carrying a gun "all" or "most of the time," and
another 23 percent did so at least "now and then,"
for a combined percentage of 35 percent who
carried firearms regularly or occasionally. Thus,
by this more liberal measure, guns were in the
hands of one out of three male central-city high
school students surveyed. Beyond this, 3 percent
of the students reported carrying a gun to school
"all" or "most of the time"; an additional 6
percent did so "now and then." 

Firearms of choice

Considerable media attention has been given
recently to automatic and military-style weapons
in the hands of youth. The findings presented in
table 1 permit assessment of this problem. In that
table, automatic and semiautomatic weapons (rifles
and handguns that automatically place a new round
into the firing chamber) are treated in
combination because the study's aim was simply to
distinguish rapid-fire arms from traditional arms.
Among the inmate respondents, the revolver was the
most commonly owned firearm; 58 percent owned a
revolver at the time of their present
incarceration. These were not small handguns. The
most common calibers among the most recently owned
handguns of this sample were the 0.38 and the
0.357. Closely following the revolver in
popularity were automatic and semiautomatic
handguns, typically chambered for 9mm or 0.45
caliber rounds; 55 percent owned one at the time
of their incarceration. 

The shotgun, whether sawed-off or unaltered, also
represented a major weapon of choice. More than
half the sample (51 percent) had possessed such a
weapon; 39 percent had owned a regular shotgun. (A
bit fewer than half the inmates, 47 percent,
reported that they personally had cut down a
shotgun or rifle to make it easier to carry or
conceal at some point in their lives.) Next in
popularity were the military-style automatic and
semiautomatic rifles that have figured so
prominently in recent media accounts. More than a
third of the inmates (35 percent) owned one at the
time they went to prison. Other types of
guns--regular hunting rifles, derringers, zip guns,
etc."found little favor; fewer than a quarter said
they owned this type of firearm when they were
incarcerated.

Table 1 shows similar patterns of ownership,
although on a considerably diminished scale, for
the high school students. The most commonly owned
weapon was the automatic or semiautomatic handgun
(18 percent), followed by the revolver (15
percent). Shoulder weapons of all sorts were less
likely to be owned by the students than were 
handguns; still, 9 percent owned a sawed-off
shotgun, 10 percent an unmodified shotgun, and 6
percent a military-style rifle.

Absent additional data, it is hard to be certain
which aspects of the pattern of ownership
reflected preferences and which aspects reflected
availability. Considering the ease with which the
juveniles obtained firearms and the number and
variety of guns apparently in circulation in their
communities (see below), it is a reasonable
assumption that they carried what they preferred
to carry and that differential availability had
little or nothing to do with it. There was an
evident preference for concealable firearms
(handguns and sawed-off shotguns), but
hard-to-conceal shoulder weapons, whether
military-style or not, were also quite common. 

To gain some sense of what juveniles seek in a
weapon, the study asked respondents (both samples)
what features they considered "very important" in
a handgun. The profile of desirable features was
remarkably similar in both groups. Among inmates,
the three highest rated traits were firepower,
quality of construction, and untraceability,
followed by ease of firing and accuracy. Among the
students, quality of construction was the highest
rated trait, followed by being easy to shoot,
accurate, and untraceable. Neither inmates nor
students indicated much preference for small,
cheap guns, nor were they attracted to such
ephemeral characteristics of weapons as "scary
looking" or "good looking." The preference,
clearly, was for hand weapons that were well-made,
accurate, easy to shoot, and not easily traced.

Obtaining a gun

Media accounts suggest that most types of guns are
relatively abundant and readily accessible to
juveniles. In fact, 70 percent of the inmates felt
that upon release they could get a gun with "no
trouble at all," a sentiment expressed by 41
percent of the students as well. An additional 17
percent of the inmates and 24 percent of the male
students said it would be "only a little trouble."
Only 13 percent of the inmates and 35 percent of
the students perceived access to guns as a "lot of
trouble" or "nearly impossible." 

We also asked both groups of respondents how they
would go about getting a gun if they desired one.
Most felt there were numerous ways but that
family, friends, and street sources were the main
sources (see table 2). Forty-five percent of the
inmates and 53 percent of the students would
"borrow" a gun from a family member or friend.
Thirty-six percent and 35 percent of the inmates
and students, respectively, would "buy" one from
family or friends. Half of the inmates (54 
percent) and a third of the students (37 percent)
would "get one off the street." 

Drug dealers and addicts were the major suppliers
after family, friends, and other street sources,
this for both inmates (35 percent) and students
(22 percent). Purchasing a gun at a gunshop (or
asking someone else to do so (see below) was
perceived by 28 percent of the students as a
reliable method; only 12 percent of the inmates
considered it so (or viewed it as necessary).
Theft was twice as likely to be mentioned by the
inmates as by the students although, relative to
other sources, it was prominent for neither group.

By way of partial confirmation of these findings
(also see table 2), when asked where they actually
had obtained (bought, borrowed, or stolen) the
most recent handgun they had ever possessed, more
than half of the inmates who had possessed
handguns checked a friend (30 percent) or street
source (22 percent). Only 6 percent listed family
member as the source. Drug dealers and drug
addicts were the sources of 21 percent of the
guns. The picture differed somewhat for the
students. Friends (38 percent) and street sources
(14 percent) were important, but family members
(23 percent) were also primary sources. Drug
dealers and addicts were rarer sources (8
percent). 

The two sets of findings in table 2, then, point
to illegal and fairly close sources of guns; if
family or friends could not supply a gun, an
apparently abundant blackmarket network could be
found on the street.

While relatively few inmates mentioned theft as a
means to obtain a gun upon release, far more had
actually stolen guns, usually from homes or cars.
More than half had stolen a gun at least once in
their lives. In contrast, only 8 percent of the
students had ever stolen a gun. Most of the thefts
involved revolvers (50 percent of the inmates),
but substantial numbers of inmates reported
stealing other types of guns: shotguns (41
percent), automatic or semiautomatic handguns (44
percent), and military-style rifles (30 percent).
When the inmates sold or traded the guns they had
stolen, they generally did so to friends or other
trusted persons. 

Thus, these juveniles both supplied guns to and
obtained guns from an informal network of family,
friends, and street sources. It seems likely,
then, that theft and burglary were the ultimate
source of many of the guns acquired by the
juveniles surveyed, but only occasionally the
proximate source. Buttressing this point, it was
found that although half of the inmates had stolen
guns at some time, only 24 percent had stolen
their most recently obtained handgun. 

Though by no means the preferred method of
acquisition, purchasing a gun through legitimate
channels was fairly common among respondents.
Federal law bars juveniles from purchasing
firearms through normal retail outlets, but the
law is readily circumvented by persuading someone
who is of legal age to make the purchase in one's
behalf. A total of 32 percent of the inmates and
18 percent of the students had asked someone to
purchase a gun for them in a gun shop, pawnshop,
or other retail outlet; 49 percent of the inmates
and 52 percent of the students mentioned a friend
as the person requested to buy a gun; and 14
percent of the inmates and 18 percent of the
students had turned to family members. Only 7
percent and 6 percent of the inmates and students,
respectively, had sought help from strangers.

It seems, then, that the inmates had access to an
informal network that made gun acquisition cheaper
and easier; turning to retail channels was
possible but generally not necessary. Less
streetwise and less hardened, perhaps, the
students saw themselves as more dependent on the
retail shop if they needed a gun, although only 18
percent had ever used that source.

Cost of a gun

Aside from convenience, there is another good
reason why juveniles prefer informal and street
sources over normal retail outlets. Guns obtained
from informal and street sources are considerably
less expensive. The substantial majority of
handguns and conventional shoulder weapons
obtained by juveniles in a cash transaction with
an informal source were purchased for $100 or
less; most of the military-style rifles obtained
from such sources were purchased for $300 or less
(table 3). Considering the general quality of the
firearms in question (see above), the cash prices
paid on the street were clearly much less than the
normal cost paid by the relatively few respondents
who obtained the guns through regular retail
outlets.

The decision to carry a gun

The popular fear is that juveniles carry guns to
prey on the rest of society. For the inmate
sample, this fear is well-founded; 63 percent had
committed crimes with guns. Forty percent had
obtained a gun specifically for use in crime. Of
those who reported committing "serious" crimes, 43
percent were "usually" or "always" armed with a
gun during the process. 

Use in crime, however, was not the most important
factor in the decision to own or carry guns,
either for inmates or students. Nor was the gun
principally a totem whose primary function was to
impress one's peers. Impressing peers or others
was among the least important reasons for
purchasing a gun, regardless of weapon type and
for students and inmates equally.

Instead, reasons for carrying a gun were dominated
by themes of self-protection and self-
preservation. The most frequent circumstances in
which inmates carried guns were when they were in
a strange area (66 percent), when they were out at
night (58 percent), and whenever they thought they
might need self-protection (69 percent). Likewise,
for any of the types of guns acquired by either
inmates or students, the desire for protection and
the need to arm oneself against enemies were the
primary reasons to obtain a gun. 

As the findings displayed in table 4 indicate, for
example, 74 percent of the inmates who had
obtained a handgun cited protection as a primary
reason for their most recent purchase, and 52
percent cited armed enemies as a major factor. Use
in crime (36 percent) and to "get someone" (37
percent) were relatively, though obviously not
wholly, unimportant. The theme of self-protection
was also evident in the circumstances in which the
inmate respondents had actually fired their guns.
Three-quarters had fired a gun at a person at
least once. Sixty-nine percent had fired in what
they considered self-defense. More than half had
also fired shots during crimes and drug deals.
Better than 6 in 10 had fired their weapons in
fights and to scare someone. 

Dealing guns

Given the means and sources of firearms
acquisition for both inmates and high school
students, it is obvious that there is a large,
informal street market in guns, one in which the
inmate respondents were regular suppliers as well
as frequent consumers. Forty-five percent could be
described as gun dealers in that they had bought,
sold, or traded a lot of guns. Of those who
described themselves as dealers, the majority
reported their most common source as theft
from homes or cars and acquisitions from drug
addicts. Sixteen percent had bought guns
out-of-State for purposes of gun dealing; another
7 percent had done so in-State; and nearly 1 in 10
had stolen guns in quantity from stores or off
trucks during shipment.

There were two very different types of "gun
dealers" in the sample. One group (77 percent)
comprised juveniles who occasionally came into
possession of surplus firearms and then sold or
traded them to street sources. They may have come
across firearms in the course of burglaries or
break-ins, or taken firearms from drug addicts in
exchange for drugs, but they were not
systematically in the business of gun dealing. The
other group (23 percent) was more systematic in
its gun-dealing activities and looked on gun deals
as a business, seeking (if need be) to purchase
guns both in- and out-of-State to supply their
consumers. This group would include (one assumes)
the one inmate in five who had gone (a few times
or many times) to places with "very easy gun
laws" to buy up guns for resale in his own
neighborhoods. Those who had dealt guns, whether
systematically or not, were more involved in gun
use and criminal activity than those who had not
dealt guns. They were more likely to carry a gun
generally, more likely to own all types of
weapons, more involved in shooting incidents, and
more accepting of shooting someone to get
something they wanted.

Drug use and gun activity

Much of the recent attention given to drugs and
violence has centered on the use and sale of
so-called hard drugs, specifically heroin,
cocaine, and crack. Such drug use was not
pervasive among the student respondents. Any use
of hard drugs was reported by only 5 or 6 percent.
Even among the inmates, percentages of users were
moderate to low; only 43 percent had used cocaine,
25 percent crack, and 21 percent heroin. Combining
results across types of drugs, complete abstinence
from hard drugs was found to be characteristic of
93 percent of the high school students and 47
percent of the inmates. Further, the vast majority
of users reported only occasional use.

With respect to the drugs-guns nexus, two
important findings should be noted. First,
substantial numbers of nonusers engaged in all the
gun-related behaviors reported by respondents. For
example, 72 percent of the inmates who had never
used heroin had fired a gun at someone. A second
and related finding is that inmate heroin users
were generally more likely than nonusers to have
been involved in most aspects of gun ownership and
use, though the level of use among users was
unrelated to the level of firearm activity.
However, users of cocaine and crack were generally
no more likely to have engaged in gun activity
than nonusers. While the number of drug users
among the students was too small to permit
reliable analyses, the link between drugs and gun
activity seemed more pronounced among members of
this group. 

Drug dealing and gun activity

The majority of inmates (72 percent) and a
surprising percentage of high school students (18
percent) had either themselves dealt drugs or
worked for someone who did. Firearms were a common
element in the drug business. Among those who had
dealt drugs or had worked for dealers, 89 percent
of the inmates and 75 percent of the students had
carried guns generally. Of the inmate dealers, 60
percent were very likely to carry guns during drug
transactions, and 63 percent had fired guns during
those transactions. Moreover, 43 percent of the
inmates reported that all or most of the drug
dealers they knew also dealt in guns. Nearly half
of the inmates who had ever stolen guns had also
sold at least some of them to drug dealers. Six
percent of those who had dealt guns had bought
guns from drug dealers.

For inmate respondents, whether or not drug users,
involvement in drug sales was associated with
higher levels of every type of gun activity
examined in this study. Student drug sellers
reported higher levels of firearm activity than
nonsellers who were not also users. However,
differences between those who combined use and
sales and those who only sold were not great; to
the extent differences existed, they favored those
who were involved in both use and sales. Taking
the findings regarding drug use, drug sales, and
gun activity together, it seems that dealers,
addicts, and drugs were common and, in
many instances, highly influential pieces in the
illicit firearms market of the respondents. Judged
by the findings from the study's selected samples,
the street economy is not made up of specialists
so much as of a generalized commerce in illegal
goods wherein guns, drugs, and other illicit
commodities are bought, sold, and traded.

Gangs and guns

The notion of a link between gangs and gun-related
violence is common in most discussions of crime in
the Nation's urban centers. Part of the problem
with assessing the accuracy of this perception is
the difficulty encountered in classifying the many
forms that gangs take. Since the present study was
not directed specifically at this issue, it is not
possible to resolve the problem fully here.
However, it was possible to classify gangs broadly
through use of variables central to most
discussions of gang typology and actual research
on gangs.5 

Typologies aside, it must be stressed that the
gang members mentioned in this report derive from
selected samples of juvenile gang members who are
also sufficiently serious offenders to merit
confinement in maximum security facilities as well
as gang members who are also students in
inner-city high schools with established problems
of violence.

For the present study gangs are classified into
three general types:

o Quasi-gang"a group with whom the respondent
identifies but does not define as an organized
gang.

o Unstructured gang"a group that is considered an
organized gang by the respondent but that has
fewer than 10 members or has few of the trappings
normally associated with gangs (e.g., an
"official" name, an "official" leader, regular
meetings, designated clothing, and a specified
turf).

o Structured gang"a group that is considered an
organized gang by the respondent, has at least 10
members, and has at least 4 of the trappings
normally associated with gangs. A total of 68
percent of the inmates and 22 percent of the
students were affiliated with a gang or
quasi-gang.

As with the relation between drugs and guns, it is
important to note that substantial portions of the
samples who were not affiliated with gangs were
heavily involved in gun-related activity. However,
for the inmates and to a lesser extent the
students as well, movement from nongang member to
member of a gang was associated with increases in
possessing and carrying guns. Overall, structured
and unstructured gang members differed little in
relation to these variables. Both exceeded
quasi-gang members in gun possession and carrying.
Among inmates, for example, 81 percent of both
types reported ownership of a revolver; 75 percent
of structured gang members and 72 percent of
unstructured gang members reported owning an
automatic or semiautomatic handgun. Corresponding
figures for quasi-gang members were slightly
lower--70 percent and 65 percent, respectively. 
Of some special interest, findings from both
samples indicate that members of structured gangs
were less likely than members of unstructured
gangs (for students, even less than those of
quasi-gangs) to possess military-style rifles. The
preferred (or, at least, most commonly owned)
weapon for respondents of both samples was the
revolver, although ownership of military-style
weapons among gang-affiliated inmates was quite
widespread, averaging 53 percent across gang 
types.

Implications 

o Owning and carrying guns are fairly common
behaviors among segments of the juvenile
population--in the present study, among youth with
records of serious crime and among students in
troubled inner-city schools. Fifty-five percent of
the inmate respondents carried a gun routinely
before being incarcerated. Twelve percent of the
students carried a gun routinely. Thus, while
these behaviors were by no means universal, least
of all among the students surveyed, neither were
they rare.

o Perhaps the most striking finding is the quality
of firearms these youth possessed. They were
well-made, easy to shoot, accurate, reliable
firearms. Whether a matter of accessibility or
preference, the most likely owned gun of either
sample was a hand weapon (automatic or not) of
large caliber. At the time of their incarceration,
55 percent of the inmate respondents owned
automatic or semiautomatic handguns; 35 percent
owned military-style automatic rifles. Comparable
figures for the student sample were 18 and 6
percent, respectively. 

o For the majority of respondents, self-protection
in a hostile and violent world was the chief
reason to own and carry a gun. Drug use and sales
are seriously implicated in the youth-gun problem,
but, at least with respect to the respondents in
this study, to characterize either as directly
causal is likely incorrect. The same may be said
of the association between gangs and guns. While
the link is apparent, it is not at all clear
whether gangs cause gun use or whether they simply
offer safety and a sense of belonging to youth who
are already well acquainted with guns and perceive
the need for them.

To the extent a violent social world prevails for
people like those in the selected samples, the
preference for high-quality, powerful firearms
should not be surprising. Given the evidently
heavy flow of fire-arms of all sorts through the
respondents' communities, guns of this type will
ultimately find favor among both perpetrators and
their possible victims. To the extent that
antiviolence policy departs from changing the
general social conditions that make
arms-possession seem necessary and even
desirable to juveniles, policy by necessity leans
toward dissuading youth from pursuing so many and
such lethal weapons. In this vein, the study
findings shed some light on the potential for
curbing youth violence through controlling gun
distribution at the point of retail sale. 

o The handgun (and, secondarily, the shotgun) was
the most commonly owned firearm among the
respondents. Much of the recent policy debate over
firearms has concerned the wisdom of banning
sales (and ownership) of military-style combat
rifles to the general public. More than a third of
the inmate respondents (though only 1 in 20
students) claimed to have possessed such a weapon
at the time they were incarcerated. Yet it would
seem highly specialized assault rifles are
generally ill-suited for the day-to-day business
of self-protection and crime. Outfitted with
high-capacity magazines or clips, these weapons
are bulky, relatively hard to handle, and very
difficult to conceal on the street. Further,
the firepower such weapons represent would rarely
be in demand. For most offensive and defensive
purposes, hand weapons are better suited.

o Controls imposed at the point of retail sale
likely would be ineffective, at least by
themselves, in preventing the acquisition of guns
by juveniles studied here because they rarely
obtain their guns through such customary outlets.
Indeed, most of the methods of obtaining guns
reported by the juveniles are already against the
law. Informal commerce in small arms involving
purchases and trades among private parties (most
likely family members and friends) is difficult to
regulate, is exploited by juveniles as well as
adults to obtain guns, and successfully subverts
legal measures designed to prevent guns from
falling into the wrong hands. In the final
analysis, the problem may not be that the
appropriate laws do not exist but that the laws
that do exist apparently are not or cannot be
enforced, and that persons involved in firearms
transactions with juveniles are not concerned with
the legality of the transaction. 

o Judging by the present findings, handguns of all
types, and even military-style rifles, are readily
available through theft from legitimate sources
and can be had at relatively little cost. Again
judging by the present findings, theft seems a
major avenue by which guns enter the black market.
Most of the inmate respondents, for example, had
stolen guns themselves, though most had purchased
or traded for the gun they owned at the time they
were incarcerated. If theft is indeed such an
important piece of the gun-supply puzzle, the
approximately 72 million handguns currently
possessed by legitimate private owners represent a
potentially rich source for criminal handgun
acquisition. 

o Therefore, an effective gun ownership policy, of
necessity, must confront the issue of firearms
theft. At a minimum, there should be programs to
educate the gun-owning public concerning the
importance of securing their firearms.

Ultimately, from the viewpoint of policy, it may
matter less where juveniles get their guns than
where they get the idea that it is acceptable to
use them. The problem is less one of getting guns
out of the hands of juveniles and more one of
reducing motivations (for the sample, primarily
self-preservation) for youth to arm themselves in
the first place. Convincing juveniles not to own,
carry, and use guns will therefore require
convincing them that they can survive in their
neighborhoods without being armed.

Notes

1. Altschuler, D., and P. Brounstein. 1991.
"Patterns of Drug Use, Drug Trafficking and Other
Delinquency Among Inner City Adolescent Males in
Washington, DC." Criminology 29:589"621. See also
Cernkovich, S., P. Giordano, and M. Pugh. 1985.
"Chronic Offenders: The Missing Cases in
Self-Report Delinquency Research." Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 76:705--32.

2. Anderson, A.B., A. Basilevsky, and D. Hum.
1983. "Missing Data: A Review of the Literature."
In Handbook of Survey Research, P. Rossi, J.
Wright, and A. Anderson, eds. New York: Academic
Press. 415--94.

3. Chaiken, J.M., and M.R. Chaiken. 1990. "Drugs
and Predatory Crime." In Drugs and Crime, M. Tonry
and J.Q. Wilson, eds. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. 203--39.


4. Akers, R. 1992. Drugs, Alcohol, and Society.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth. Goode, E. 1989.
Drugs in American Society, 3rd Edition. New York:
Knopf. 

5. Curry, G.D., and I.A. Spergel. 1988. "Gang
Homicide, Delinquency and Community." Criminology
26:381--405. Fagan, J. 1990. "Social Processes of
Delinquency and Drug Use among Urban Gangs." In
Gangs in America, C. R. Huff, ed. Newbury Park,
California: Sage. 183--219. Klein, M.W., and C.L.
Maxson. 1989.

"Street Gang Violence." In Violent Crime, Violent
Criminals, N.A. Weiner and M.E. Wolfgang, eds.
Newbury Park, California: Sage. 198--234. Morash,
M. 1983.

"Gangs, Groups, and Delinquency." British Journal
of Criminology 23:309--35.

6. See Beck, A., S. Kline, and L. Greenfeld. 1988.
Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Fagan, J., E.
Piper, and M. Moore. 1986. "Violent Delinquents
and Urban Youths." Criminology 24:439--71. Fagan,
J., E. Piper, and Y. Cheng. 1987. "Contributions
of Victimization to Delinquency in Inner Cities."
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
78:586--613. Wright, J.D., and P. Rossi. 1986.
Armed and Considered Dangerous. Hawthorne, New
York:  Aldine. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1988.
Profile of State Prison Inmates, 1986. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.

7. See Fagan, J., E. Piper, and M. Moore. 1986.
"Violent Delinquents and Urban Youths."
Criminology 24:439--71. Fagan, J., E. Piper, and Y.
Cheng. 1987. "Contributions of Victimization to
Delinquency in Inner Cities." Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology 78:586--613.

References

Akers, R. 1992. Drugs, Alcohol, and Society.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

Altschuler, D., and P. Brounstein. 1991. "Patterns
of Drug Use, Drug Trafficking and Other
Delinquency Among Inner City Adolescent Males in
Washington, DC." Criminology 29:589--621. 


Anderson, A.B., A. Basilevsky, and D. Hum. 1983.
"Missing Data: A Review of the Literature." In
Handbook of Survey Research, P. Rossi, J. Wright,
and A. Anderson, eds. New York: Academic Press.
415--94.

Beck, A., S. Kline, and L. Greenfeld. 1988. Survey
of Youth in Custody, 1987. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Cernkovich, S., P. Giordano, and M. Pugh. 1985.
"Chronic Offenders: The Missing Cases in
Self-Report Delinquency Research." Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 76:705--32.

Chaiken, J.M., and M.R. Chaiken. 1990. "Drugs and
Predatory Crime." In Drugs and Crime, M. Tonry and
J.Q. Wilson, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. 203--39.

Curry, G.D., and I.A. Spergel. 1988. "Gang
Homicide, Delinquency and Community." Criminology
26:381--405.

Fagan, J. 1990. "Social Processes of Delinquency
and Drug Use among Urban Gangs." In Gangs in
America, C. R. Huff, ed. Newbury Park, California:
Sage. 183--219.

Fagan, J., E. Piper, and Y. Cheng. 1987.
"Contributions of Victimization to Delinquency in
Inner Cities." Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology 78:586--613.

Fagan, J., E. Piper, and M. Moore. 1986. "Violent
Delinquents and Urban Youths." Criminology
24:439--71.

Goode, E. 1989. Drugs in American Society, 3rd
Edition. New York: Knopf.

Klein, M.W., and C.L. Maxson. 1989. "Street Gang
Violence." In Violent Crime, Violent Criminals,
N.A.

Weiner and M.E. Wolfgang, eds. Newbury Park,
California: Sage. 198--234.

Morash, M. 1983. "Gangs, Groups, and Delinquency."
British Journal of Criminology 23:309--35.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1988. Profile of
State Prison Inmates, 1986. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.

Wright, J.D., and P. Rossi. 1986. Armed and
Considered Dangerous. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine.

Sidebar 1

Caveat 

It should be stressed that these findings are
technically not generalizable to other settings
and populations. The four States serving as
research sites for this study were not a
probability sample of States. Moreover, to
maximize percentages of respondents involved in
the behaviors of interest, the study purposely
focused on serious juvenile offenders and on
students from especially problematic inner-city
schools. Therefore, the 6 correctional facilities
and 10 high schools (and by virtue of the
voluntary nature of participation in the study,
the respondents in those institutions) serving as
research sites were not probability samples of
their respective universes. 

Nonetheless, comparison of inmate respondents'
profiles with those known through studies of youth
in similar institutions indicates that the present
sample was not dissimilar to samples of State
maximum-security wards serving as subjects of
other studies.6 Moreover, a 1984 study of
inner-city high school students' criminal activity
employed data collected from randomly selected
high school students from inner-city, high-crime
neighborhoods in four cities7 and indicated age
and race breakdowns verysimilar to those found
among the student respondents.

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Research in Brief: Results of a
study of juvenile possession of firearms drawn
from voluntary questionnaires anonymously
completed by:

o 835 male serious offenders incarcerated in 6
juvenile correctional facilities in 4 States.

o 758 male students in 10 inner-city high schools
near the facilities.

Both students and inmates came from environments
marked by crime and violence.
Key issues: Researchers sought to find out the
number and types of arms owned and where, how, and
why they were obtained. Because the study focused
on serious juvenile offenders and students from
schools in high-risk areas, the results are not
generalizable to the entire U.S. population.

Key Findings: The study found that:

o 83 percent of inmates and 22 percent of the
students possessed guns.

o 55 percent of inmates carried guns all or most
of the time in the year or two before being
incarcerated; 12 percent of the students did so,
with another 23 percent carrying guns now and
then.

o The firearms of choice were high-quality,
powerful revolvers, closely followed by automatic
and semiautomatic handguns and then shotguns.

o Most of those surveyed thought it would be easy
to acquire a gun.  Only 13 percent of inmates and
35 percent of students said it would be a lot of
trouble or nearly impossible. 

o When asked how they would get a gun, 45 percent
of the inmates and 53 percent of the students
would "borrow" one from family or friends; 54
percent of the inmates and 37 percent of the
students said they would get one "off the street."

o Fewer inmates and students said they used hard
drugs than expected (43 percent of inmates and 5
to 6 percent of students).  Drug use was
moderately related to gun activity.

o More inmates than students reported selling
drugs (72 percent of inmates and 18 percent of
students). Those who were involved in selling
drugs had higher levels of gun ownership and use
than those who were not.

o The main reason given for owning or carrying a
gun was self-protection.

The researchers conclude that the fundamental
policy problem involves convincing youths they can
survive in their neighborhoods without being
armed.

Target audience: Law enforcement administrators,
school officials, juvenile justice practitioners,
researchers, and community groups who work with
youth.

Director's Notes

A number of schools and neighbor-hoods can be
dangerous places for many young people in America.
Knives, revolvers, and even shotguns regularly
turn up in searches of school lockers. News
reports describe incidents of children being shot
on playgrounds or of youths firing rifles as they
cruise the streets in cars. The use of weapons
in violent incidents has increased fear among
citizens of all ages.

In looking for solutions, school administrators
and local criminal and juvenile justice officials
seek more information about juveniles' use of
firearms. To that end, the National Institute of
Justice, with joint funding from the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention--two
bureaus within the Justice Department's Office of
Justice Programs--commissioned a study to learn
more about the level and nature of juvenile gun
possession in high-risk neighborhoods. The
researchers asked students in high schools that
had experienced a large number of violent
incidents, as well as male juveniles involved in
serious offenses, about the weapons they carried,
why they carried them, and how they acquired them.

The reader should note, however, that the study
focused on high-risk areas and an at-risk
population. Therefore, the findings are not
generalizable, but the data shed new light on a
complex problem.

The findings discussed in this report are
sobering. For example, many students surveyed in
this study claimed they carried firearms to
protect themselves from fellow students and had
little trouble obtaining the weapons. This
report raises serious issues that concern all who
are working to diminish violence and crime in our
neighborhoods. It should be helpful to those
developing policies and strategies to combat the
threats to public safety posed by juveniles who
illegally carry guns.

Michael J. Russell
Acting Director
National Institute of Justice 


John J. Wilson
Acting Administrator
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention