Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gun Carrying Among Drug Market Participants: Evidence from Incarcerated Drug Offenders

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The decision to carry a gun by drug market participants involves consideration of the potential for conflict with other market actors, the need for self-protection, and the desire for reputation and status, among other factors. The objective of this study is to investigate the motives, contingencies, and situational factors that influence criminal gun possession among drug market participants.

Methods

Using data on drug offenders from the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, we estimate design-based logistic regression models within a multiple imputation framework to investigate the influence of drug market features and participant characteristics on gun carrying behavior.

Results

Overall, 7 % of the drug offenders in our sample carried a firearm during the offense for which they were incarcerated. Our multivariate findings indicate that a number of factors condition drug market participants’ propensity for gun carrying, including individual psychopharmacological, economic-compulsive, and systemic factors as well as broader features of the marketplace, including the type of drug market, the value of the drugs, and certain structural characteristics.

Conclusions

Our findings have a number of implications for designing drug market interventions. Directing enforcement resources against emerging, expanding, or multi-commodity drug markets could deter lethal violence more than interventions targeting stable, single-commodity markets. In addition to open-air street markets, targeting higher-level and closed market segments could realize meaningful gun violence reductions. Finally, the expansion of promising focused deterrence strategies that combine deterrence and support initiatives could further deescalate gun violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The n = 4,765 figure includes n = 4,569 cases designated by BJS as offenders with a controlling drug offense plus an additional n = 196 cases with a nominal nondrug offense (e.g., weapons, parole/probation violation, public order, conspiracy, or racketeering) that were administered the drug module because of the underlying drug-related nature of their offense.

  2. This measure was coded 1 with affirmative responses to the following two questions: “While you were growing up, did you have friends you hung around with who engaged in activities such as using drugs; destroying or damaging property that did not belong to them; shoplifting; stealing motor vehicles or parts from motor vehicle; selling stolen property; breaking into homes or other buildings; selling, importing, or manufacturing drugs; mugging, robbing or extorting money from people; or any other illegal activity?” and, if so, “Did you participate in ANY of these activities with your friends?”.

  3. Based on the question “Approximately what amount of [drug] was involved?”, we first converted each reported drug amount into a common metric. Heroin, methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and marijuana quantities were converted to grams, whereas PCP, LSD, ecstasy, opiates, barbiturates, and other pharmaceuticals were converted to dosage units (i.e., pills, tabs). For nonstandard metrics, we assumed one bag/vial/pill of heroin or methamphetamine to be .1 g, one rock or vial of crack or powder cocaine to be .2 g, and one marijuana joint to be .5 g. Likewise, we assumed .1 g of opiates and .3 g of sedatives/barbiturates to be one dosage unit. We then obtained the quartile distribution for each drug category and used that for the final measure. For the 12 % of cases that reported multiple drugs, we took the highest indicated quartile among the reported drugs.

  4. This measure was derived from the following two items: “At the time of your arrest, were you importing or helping others import illegal drugs into the United States; illegally manufacturing, growing or helping others manufacture or grow drugs; laundering drug money; distributing or helping to distribute drugs to dealers; selling or helping to sell drugs to others for their use; or using or possessing illegal drugs?” and, if yes to certain roles, “Were you a street-level dealer; dealer above the street-level dealer; bodyguard, strongman or debt collector; go-between or broker; money runner; or courier, mule or loader?” Note that the ‘other unspecified role’ category comprises n = 704 respondents who answered ‘no’ to all specified roles in the first question. The large number of non-affirmative responses is due both to the lack of an open-ended specify option for this item and question phrasing that refers to the role played “at the time of arrest,” as conspiratorial acts are often completed well before an arrest takes place.

  5. Specifically, the question states “Did the offense take place at or in your own home or apartment; in a commercial place such as a bar, restaurant, gas station, store, office, or factory; in a public place such as at school, on the street, in a parking lot, on public transportation, in a station or depot, or in a park, etc.; some other place; or no one place/multiple incidents?”.

  6. The SISFCF collected income data using a thirteen-level ordinal variable [(0) ‘No income,’ (1) ‘$1–199’… (11) ‘$5,000–7,499,’ (12) ‘$7,500 or more’]. We coded the median value for each income level, using a value of $8,750 for the final category. We then took the log of this distribution after adding a constant of 1.

  7. The smaller reported percentage in the 4th quartile is explained by the higher rate of missing drug amount data among state drug offenders, resulting in relatively more predictions falling into the lower three quartiles.

References

  • Adler PA (1993) Wheeling and dealing: an ethnography of an upper-level drug dealing and smuggling community. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen AN, Lo CC (2012) Drugs, guns, and disadvantaged youths: co-occurring behavior and the code of the street. Crime Delinq 58(6):932–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett T, Holloway K (2004) Possession and use of illegal guns among offenders in England and Wales. Howard J Crim Justice 43(3):237–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett T, Holloway K (2007) Drug-crime connections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett T, Holloway K (2009) The causal connection between drug misuse and crime. Br J Criminol 49(4):513–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson JS, Decker SH (2010) The organizational structure of international drug smuggling. J Crim Justice 38(2):130–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black MM, Ricardo IB (1994) Drug use, drug trafficking, and weapon carrying among low-income, African–American, early adolescent boys. Pediatrics 93(6):1065–1072

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein A (1995) Youth violence, guns and the illicit-drug industry. J Crim Law Criminol 86(1):10–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein A, Rivara FP, Rosenfeld R (2000) The rise and decline of homicide—and why. Annu Rev Public Health 21:505–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boles SM, Miotto K (2003) Substance abuse and violence: a review of the literature. Aggress Viol Behav 8(2):155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga AA (2008) Pulling levers focused deterrence strategies and the prevention of gun homicide. J Crim Justice 36(4):332–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga AA, Weisburd DL (2012) The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime. J Res Crime Delinq 49(3):323–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan IR, Moore SC (2009) Weapons and violence: a review of theory and research. Aggress Viol Behav 14(3):215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt CL, Weisburd D (2010) Logistic regression models for categorical outcome variables. In: Piquero AR, Weisburd D (eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology. Springer, New York, pp 649–682

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brownstein HH, Mulcahy TM, Fernandes-Huessy J, Taylor BG, Woods D (2012) The organization and operation of illicit retail methamphetamine markets. Crim Justice Pol Rev 23(1):67–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007) Survey of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities, 2004. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Butters JE, Sheptycki J, Brochu S, Erickson PG (2011) Guns and sublethal violence a comparative study of at-risk youth in two Canadian cities. Int Crim Justice Rev 21(4):402–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulkins JP, Reuter P (2009) Towards a harm-reduction approach to enforcement. Safer Commun 8(1):9–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers RL, Skinner CJ (2003) Analysis of survey data. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn DV, Taylor P, Lopez MH, Gallagher CA, Parker K, Maass KT (2013) Gun homicide rate down 49 % since 1993. Public Unaware, Peak

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook PJ (1991) The technology of personal violence. Crime and justice: a review of research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook PJ, Ludwig J (2004) Does gun prevalence affect teen gun carrying after all? Criminology 42(1):27–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cork D (1999) Examining space-time interaction in city-level homicide data: crack markets and the diffusion of guns among youth. J Quant Criminol 15(4):379–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corsaro N, Hunt ED, Hipple NK, McGarrell EF (2012) The impact of drug market pulling levers policing on neighborhood violence. Criminol Public Policy 11(2):167–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis R, Wendel T (2000) Toward the development of a typology of illegal drug markets. In: Natarajan M, Hough M (eds) Crime prevention studies, 11, p 121–152

  • Decker SH, Rosenfeld R (2004) Reducing gun violence: the St. Louis consent-to-search program. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Katz CM, Webb VJ (2008) Understanding the black box of gang organization: implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime Delinq 54(1):153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuRant RH, Krowchuk DP, Kreiter S, Sinal SH, Woods CR (1999) Weapon carrying on school property among middle school students. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 153(1):21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE (1994) Drug markets and drug places: a case–control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing. University of Maryland, College Park, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE (1995) A general model of the geography of illicit retail marketplaces. In: Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place, vol 4. Criminal Justice Press and the Police Executive Research Forum, Monsey, NY, pp 68–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE, Clarke RV, Guerette RT (2007) Risky facilities: crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. In: Farrell G, Bowers KJ, Johnson SD, Townsley M (eds) Imagination for crime prevention, vol 21. Criminal Justice Press and Willan Publishing, Monsey, NY, pp 225–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagan J, Chin KL (1990) Violence as regulation and social control in the distribution of crack. In: Rosa MDL, Lambert EY, Gropper B (eds) Drugs and violence: causes, correlates, and consequences, vol 103. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 8–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson RB, Bonkiewicz L (2013) Guns and trafficking in crack-cocaine and other drug markets. Crime Delinq 59(3):319–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frabutt JM, Hefner MK, Di Luca KL, Shelton TL, Harvey LK (2010) A street-drug elimination initiative: the law enforcement perspective. Polic: Int J Police Strateg Manag 33(3):452–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein PJ (1985) The drugs/violence nexus: a tripartite conceptual framework. J Drug Issue 39:493–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales R, Mooney L, Rawson RA (2010) The methamphetamine problem in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health 31:385–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hales G, Lewis C, Silverstone D (2006) Gun crime: the market in and use of illegal firearms. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamid A (1990) The political economy of crack-related violence. Contemp Drug Probl 17(1):31–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Harocopos A, Hough M (2005) Drug dealing in open-air markets. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann CR (2013) Street-level spatiotemporal crime analysis: examples from Bronx County, NY (2006–2010). Crime modeling and mapping using geospatial technologies. Springer, New York, pp 73–104

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt E, Sumner M, Scholten T, Frabutt J (2008) Using GIS to identify drug markets and reduce drug-related violence. In: Thomas Y, Richardson D, Cheung I (eds) Geography and drug addiction. Springer, Netherlands, pp 395–413

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs BA, Wright R (2006) Street justice: retaliation in the criminal underworld. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques S, Reynald DM (2012) The offenders’ perspective on prevention: guarding against victimization and law enforcement. J Res Crime Delinq 49(2):269–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques S, Wright R (2011) Informal control and illcit drug trade. Criminology 49(3):729–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao AY (2012) Gun incidents at the local level: understanding the demographic variables. Crim Justice Stud 26(2):213–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson L (2012) Classifying drug markets by travel patterns: testing Reuter and MacCoun’s typology of market violence. Temple University, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DR, Young R (2011) Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing data: comparisons and recommendations. J Marriage Fam 73(5):926–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BD, Golub A, Dunlap E (2000) The rise and decline of hard drugs, drug markets, and violence in inner-city New York. In: Blumstein A, Wallman J (eds) The crime drop in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 164–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas J, Marshall IH (1999) The self-report methodology in crime research. Crime Justice 25:291–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kacanek D, Hemenway D (2006) Gun carrying and drug selling among young incarcerated men and women. J Urban Health: Bull N Y Acad Med 83(2):266–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodjo CM, Auinger P, Ryan SA (2003) Demographic, intrinsic, and extrinsic factors associated with weapon carrying at school. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 157(1):96–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korf DJ, Brochu S, Benschop A, Harrison LD (2008) Teen drug sellers-an international study of segregated drug markets and related violence. Contemp Drug Probl 35:153–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter F, Valliant R (2007) A survey on survey statistics: what is done and can be done in Stata. Stata J 7(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee ES, Forthofer RN (2006) Analyzing complex survey data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippert J, Cattan N, Parker M (2013) Heroin pushed on Chicago by cartel fueling gang murders. Bloomberg Markets Magazine

  • Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Howell JC, Tobin K, Howard GJ (2000) Factors influencing gun carrying among young urban males over the adolescent-young adult life course. Criminology 38(3):811–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long JS, Freese J (2001) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. Stata Press, College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • May T, Hough M (2004) Drug markets and distribution systems. Addict Res Theory 12(6):549–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oscapella E (1998) The relationship between illegal drugs and firearms: a literature review conducted for the Department of Justice. Department of Justice Canada, Ottowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Oser CB, Mooney JL, Staton-Tindall M, Leukefeld CG (2009) The drugs—violence nexus among rural felony probationers. J Interpers Violence 24(8):1285–1303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson G, Hobbs D (2003) King pin? A case study of a middle market drug broker. Howard J 42(4):335–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips MD (2012) Assessing the impact of drug use and drug selling on violent offending in a panel of delinquent youth. J Drug Issue 42(3):298–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips S, Maume MO (2007) Have gun will shoot? Weapon instrumentality, intent, and the violent escalation of conflict. Homicide Stud 11(4):272–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogrebin M, Stretesky P, Unnithan NP (2009) Guns, violence, and criminal behavior: the offender’s perspective. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder CO

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid LW (2001) The drugs-guns relationship: exploring dynamic and static models. Contemp Drug Probl 28(4):651–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter JP, Raghunathan TE, Kinney SK (2006) The importance of modeling the sampling design in multiple imputation for missing data. Surv Methodol 32(2):143–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuter P (2009) Systemic violence in drug markets. Crime, Law Soc Change 52(3):275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter P, MacCoun RJ (1992) Street drug markets and inner-city neighborhoods: matching policy to reality. In: Steinberg J, Lyon DW, Vaiana ME (eds) Urban America: policy choices for Los Angeles and the nation. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, pp 227–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley KJ (1998) Homicide and drugs: a tale of six cities. Homicide Stud 2(2):176–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivers L, Norris A, McGarrell EF (2012) Mental model of the drug market intervention. J Drug Issue 42(1):59–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royston P, White IR (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations (mice): implementation in stata. J Stat Softw 45(4):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Seffrin PM, Domahidi BI (2014) The drugs–violence nexus: a systematic comparison of adolescent drug dealers and drug users. J Drug Issue. doi:10.1177/0022042614526994

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevigny EL, Caulkins JP (2004) Kingpins or mules: an analysis of drug offenders incarcerated in federal and state prisons. Criminol Public Policy 3(3):401–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheley JF, Brewer VE (1995) Possession and carrying of firearms among suburban youth. Public Health Rep 110(1):18

    Google Scholar 

  • Shukla RK, Crump JL, Chrisco ES (2012) An evolving problem: methamphetamine production and trafficking in the United States. Int J Drug Policy 23:426–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon TR, Richardson JL, Dent CW (1998) Prospective psychosocial, interpersonal, and behavioral predictors of handgun carrying among adolescents. Am J Public Health 88(6):960–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon TR, Crosby AE, Dahlberg LL (1999) Students who carry weapons to high school: comparison with other weapon-carriers. J Adolesc Health 24(5):340–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick J (1990) The social structure of street drug dealing. Am J Police 9(1):1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Delinq 59(2):191–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp (2011) Stata multiple-imputation reference manual: release 12. StataCorp LP, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinman KJ, Zimmerman MA (2003) Episodic and persistent gun-carrying among urban African–American adolescents. J Adolesc Health 32(5):356–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stretesky PB (2009) National case-control study of homicide offending and methamphetamine use. J Interpers Violence 24(6):911–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor AP (2007) How drug dealers settle disputes: violent and nonviolent outcomes. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Sentencing Commission (2007) Cocaine and federal sentencing policy. United States Sentencing Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn MG, Howard MO, Harper-Chang L (2006) Do prior trauma and victimization predict weapon carrying among delinquent youth? Youth Violence Juv Justice 4(4):314–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn MG, Fu Q, Perron BE, Bohnert ASB, Howard MO (2010) Is crack cocaine use associated with greater violence than powdered cocaine use results from a national sample. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 36(4):181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn MG, Perron BE, Abdon A, Olate R, Groom R, Wu LT (2012) Correlates of handgun carrying among adolescents in the United States. J Interpers Violence 27(10):2003–2021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel PT (2007) Regression with missing ys: an improved strategy for analyzing multiply imputed data. Soc Methodol 37(1):83–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldorf D, Murphy S (1995) Perceived risks and criminal justice pressures on middle class cocaine sellers. J Drug Issue 25(1):11–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters GD (2012) Substance abuse and criminal thinking: testing the countervailing, mediation, and specificity hypotheses. Law Hum Behav 36(6):506–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster DW, Gainer PS, Champion HR (1993) Weapon carrying among inner-city junior high school students: defensive behavior vs aggressive delinquency. Am J Public Health 83(11):1604–1608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner MD, Sussman S, Sun P, Dent C (2005) Explaining the link between violence perpetration, victimization and drug use. Addict Behav 30(6):1261–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisheit RA (1998) Marijuana subcultures: studying crime in rural America. In: Ferrell J, Hamm MS (eds) Ethnography at the edge: crime, deviance, and field research. Northeastern University Press, Boston, pp 178–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells W, Horney J (2002) Weapon effects and individual intent to do harm: influences on the escalation of violence. Criminology 40(2):265–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White HR, Gorman DM (2000) Dynamics of the drug-crime relationship. In Criminal justice 2000—the nature of crime: continuity and change (Vol. 1). National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, p 141–218

  • White IR, Daniel R, Royston P (2010) Avoiding bias due to perfect prediction in multiple imputation of incomplete categorical variables. Comput Stat Data Anal 54(10):2267–2275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White IR, Royston P, Wood AM (2011) Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 30(4):377–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, 1305 Greene St, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Eric L. Sevigny

  2. Department of Social Sciences, Clayton State University, Morrow, GA, 30260, USA

    Andrea Allen

Authors
  1. Eric L. Sevigny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric L. Sevigny.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sevigny, E.L., Allen, A. Gun Carrying Among Drug Market Participants: Evidence from Incarcerated Drug Offenders. J Quant Criminol 31, 435–458 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9233-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9233-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation