Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jan 3.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2023 Apr 20;171:107516. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107516

The association between witnessing firearm violence and firearm carriage: Results from a national study of teens

Rebeccah L Sokol a,b,*, Maya Haasz c, Marc A Zimmerman b,d,e,f, Rebecca M Cunningham b,d,e,g, Patrick M Carter b,d,e,g
PMCID: PMC11697702  NIHMSID: NIHMS2039073  PMID: 37086861

Abstract

The association between witnessing firearm-involved violence and firearm carriage among teens, independent of non-firearm involved violence, has yet to be identified. The present analyses estimate associations of witnessing firearm-involved violence and non-firearm involved violence with firearm carriage in a nationally representative sample of teens. Data are from the FACTS National Survey—a cross-sectional web-based survey of 2140 US teenagers (ages 14–18) fielded in June–July 2020. The team first estimated the correlation between witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression then assessed the associations of witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence with firearm carriage. The team pooled results over fifteen imputed datasets to account for missing data, and analyses incorporated survey weights to create nationally representative estimates. The correlation between witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence was low (ϕ = 0.19[0.15, 0.23]). Witnessing firearm-involved violence and witnessing non-firearm involved violence were both associated with teen firearm carriage in bivariate models (OR: 3.55[1.86, 6.79]; 4.51[1.75, 11.6]). These associations persisted in the multivariable model that adjusted for violence victimization, demographic characteristics, and both witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence (aOR for witnessing firearm-involved violence = 3.67[1.77, 7.59]; aOR for witnessing non-firearm involved violence = 4.30[1.56, 11.9]). We found no difference in the strength of these associations (Wald χ2(df = 1) = 0.25, p = 0.80). Results suggest that witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence are uniquely associated with teens’ firearm carriage. Identifying means to reduce both exposures, in addition to recognizing factors that may weaken the associations between witnessing different types of violence and firearm carriage, may disrupt cycles of violence.

Keywords: Firearms, Nationally representative, Violence, Youth, Risk factors

Firearm injuries are the leading cause of death for teenagers aged 14 to 17 in the United States (WISQARS, 2019; Goldstick et al., 2022). Youth firearm carriage is one of the strongest risk factors for youth firearm injury (Branas et al., 2009; DuRant et al., 1997; DuRant et al., 1995; Lowry et al., 1998; Pickett et al., 2005), and carriage is a predictor of future involvement in firearm-related violence, either as a perpetrator or a victim (Goldstick et al., 2019; Carter et al., 2015; Kelsay et al., 2020). As such, identifying and examining risk factors associated with youth firearm carriage is essential to develop effective interventions designed to prevent firearm injuries.

Teen violence exposure is a known risk factor for youth firearm carriage (Spano et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2017). Each year in the United States, one-third of teens witness community violence (Finkelhor et al., 2015; Finkelhor et al., 2009), and over one million witness a shooting (Finkelhor et al., 2015). Although many teens exposed to violence do not subsequently perpetrate violence, being a victim of firearm violence approximately doubles the probability a teen will perpetrate violence (Bingenheimer et al., 2005). Yet, the association between witnessing firearm-involved violence and teens’ firearm carriage, independent of their experience of violence victimization and non-firearm involved violence exposure, has yet to be identified.

Researchers’ conceptualization of violence exposure often includes witnessing violence combined with violence victimization (Spano et al., 2012; Bingenheimer et al., 2005; McMahon et al., 2009; Slovak and Singer, 2001; Turner et al., 2016; Beardslee et al., 2018). Among studies that assess witnessing violence independent of violence victimization, researchers commonly combine witnessing firearm violence and witnessing violence that does not involve a firearm (hereafter referred to as non-firearm involved violence) (Reid et al., 2017; Salzinger et al., 2008). Yet, it is possible that witnessing different types of violence influence youth firearm carriage through distinct pathways.

Witnessing firearm violence may create perceptions that many people are carrying a firearm and normalize solving conflicts with firearms (Hemenway et al., 1996), and may motivate teens who witness firearm violence to carry a firearm. In a longitudinal study, Beardslee and colleagues found male juvenile offenders were more likely to carry a firearm following firearm violence exposure—including witnessing and victimization by firearm violence—but not after exposure to non-firearm violence (Beardslee et al., 2018). This study, however, combined witnessing firearm violence and firearm victimization, and so there is no estimate of the unique association between witnessing firearm-involved violence and firearm carriage.

Firearm-involved violence is a particularly dangerous form of violence, with a higher likelihood of being fatal compared to other forms of violence (Braga et al., 2021). Additionally, witnessing firearm-involved violence may contribute to the normalization of firearm carriage and usage (Hemenway et al., 1996), potentially leading to more firearm-involved violence. Despite this, it is currently unclear whether witnessing firearm-involved violence, independent of other forms of violence exposure, is associated with youth firearm carriage. To investigate this, we analyzed data from a nationally representative study of teens to examine the unique associations of witnessing (1) firearm-involved and (2) non-firearm involved violence with youth firearm carriage.

1. Methods

In June and July 2020, the team conducted the FACTS National Survey, a cross-sectional, web-based, survey of U.S. parents’ (N = 2924) and their teens’ (ages 14–18 years; N = 2140) firearm-involved exposures and behaviors (FACTS, 2020). The present analyses focuses on the teen responses. Panel weights assigned to each respondent incorporated unequal selection probabilities and make analyses nationally representative. The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study.

1.1. Measures

1.1.1. Witnessed non-firearm involved violence

To operationalize witnessing non-firearm involved violence, we used three dichotomous items from the Things I Have Seen and Heard survey (Richters and Saltzman, 1990) focused on serious non-firearm involved violence in the community (“In the past 12 months, which of the following things have you seen or heard in your neighborhood: 1) I have seen somebody get beaten up; 2) I have seen somebody get stabbed; 3) I have seen somebody pull a knife on another person”) and one Likert-type item from the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (Hamby et al., 2011) focused on serious non-firearm involved violence at school (“In the past 12 months, how often did you see or experience students beating up other students at your school”). Reporting the experience of at least one of these four events was indicative of having witnessed non-firearm involved violence in the past year (versus never having witnessed non-firearm involved violence in the past year).

1.1.2. Witnessed firearm-involved violence

To operationalize witnessing firearm-involved violence, we used two items focused on firearm-involved violence in the community from the Things I Have Seen and Heard survey (Richters and Saltzman, 1990) (“In the past 12 months, which of the following things have you seen or heard in your neighborhood: 1) I have seen somebody pull a gun on another person; 2) I have seen somebody get shot”) and one Likert-type item from the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (Hamby et al., 2011) focused on firearm-involved violence at school (“In the past 12 months, how often did you see or experience students bringing guns to school”). Reporting the experience of at least one of these three events was indicative of having witnessed firearm-involved violence in the past year (versus never having witnessed firearm-involved violence in the past year).

1.1.3. Firearm carriage

Teens responded to the question: “In the past 12 months, how often have you carried a gun with you when you were outside your home?” with response options ranging from never (1) to more than 20 times (7). Given low base rates, we dichotomized the variable into never having carried a firearm versus ever having carried a firearm in the past year.

1.1.4. Control variables

Analyses controlled for age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, parent education, peer victimization, and zip code per capita income. Peer violence victimization was the sum score of three items adapted from the physical assault victimization domain of the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), with higher scores indicating more violence victimization (range 3–21; Cronbach’s α = 0.51) (Straus et al., 1996). The team acquired zip code per capita income data from the publicly available Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income, and linked this data to the FACTS National Survey according to participant zip code.

1.2. Analysis

The team first estimated the correlation between witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression then assessed the associations of witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence with firearm carriage. The multivariable model included both witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence, age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, parent education, zip code per capita income, and peer violence victimization. After running the multivariable model, we conducted a Wald test to determine if witnessing firearm-involved violence and witnessing non-firearm-involved violence differed in the strength of their associations with carrying behavior. Because data were missing for 12% of the sample, the analysis team created fifteen imputed datasets using the R package miceadds version 3.14–3; the imputation model utilized predictive mean matching and incorporated sampling weights (Robitzsch et al., 2017). All subsequent analyses utilized sampling weights and pooled the results across the fifteen imputed datasets to ensure findings were nationally representative. Analyses were conducted in R version 4.0.2 in 2023.

2. Results

Fourteen percent of respondents reported having witnessed firearm-involved violence and 66% had witnessed non-firearm involved violence in the past twelve months. Table 1 provides additional descriptive statistics for the sample.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for a nationally representative sample of teenaged youth in the United States (ages 14–18) from the FACTS National Survey fielded in June-July 2020 (n=2,140).

Mean (se) or Percent (N), Weighteda Mean (sd) or Percent (n), Unweighted
Witnessing violence
 Witnessing firearm violence 14% (286) 12% (237)
 Witnessing non-firearm violence 66% (1346) 66% (1330)
Firearm carriage 2.3% (47) 1.8% (37)
Peer victimizationb 3.31 (0.05) 3.30 (1.05)
Age 16.0 (0.06) 15.7 (1.40)
Gender
 Male 49% (1000) 48% (967)
 Female 49% (1000) 48% (971)
 Transgender 1% (20) 1% (21)
 Queer <1% (10) 1% (21)
 Another gender not listed <1% (10) <1% (16)
Race
 White 74% (1510) 80% (1579)
 Black 10% (204) 5% (100)
 Multiracial 10% (204) 10% (185)
 Asian American 2% (41) 3% (58)
 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% (20) 1% (20)
 Another race not listed 3% (61) 3% (50)
Ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic 83% (1693) 88% (1748)
 Hispanic 17% (347) 12% (234)
Parent education
 High school or less 29% (592) 5% (115)
 Some college, 2-year college graduate, or trade school 32% (652) 30% (627)
 4-year college graduate 18% (367) 28% (584)
 Post-graduate schooling 21% (429) 38% (787)
Zip code per capita income (in thousands of dollars) 41.1 (0.72) 49.0 (37.5)
Open in a new tab

Note: Not all categories sum to 2,140 due to missingness on covariates.

a

Descriptive statistics weighted to provide nationally representative estimates.

b

Violent victimization was the sum score of three adapted items from the physical assault victimization domain of the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), with higher scores indicating more violence victimization (range 3–21; Cronbach’s α=0.51). (Straus et al., 1996)

The correlation between witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence was low (ϕ = 0.19[0.15, 0.23]). Witnessing firearm-involved violence and witnessing non-firearm involved violence were both associated with teen firearm carriage in bivariate models (odds ratios [ORs]: 3.55[1.86, 6.79]; 4.51[1.75, 11.6]). These associations persisted in the multivariable model that adjusted for violence victimization, demographic characteristics, and both witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence (Table 2). Specifically, youth who witnessed firearm-involved violence had 3.67 times the odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.67[1.77, 7.59]) of carrying a firearm compared to youth who did not witness firearm-involved violence. Additionally, youth who witnessed non-firearm involved violence had 4.30 times the odds (aOR =4.30 [1.56, 11.9]) of carrying a firearm compared to youth who did not witness non-firearm involved violence. Wald test results from the multivariable model indicated no difference between witnessing firearm-involved violence and witnessing non-firearm-involved violence in the strength of their associations with carrying behavior (Wald χ2(df = 1) = 0.25, p = 0.80).

Table 2.

Results of bivariate and multivariable logistic regression of teen firearm carriage among a nationally representative sample of teenaged youth in the United States (ages 14–18) from the FACTS National Survey fielded in June-July 2020 (n=2,140).

Firearm carriage OR (95% confidence interval)
Characteristic Witness firearm violence Witness non-firearm involved violence Multivariable model
Witnessing violence
 Witnessing firearm-involved violence 3.55 (1.86, 6.79)*** – 3.67 (1.77, 7.59)***
Witnessing non-firearm involved violence – 4.51 (1.75, 11.6)** 4.30 (1.56, 11.9)**
Peer victimization – – 0.84 (0.56, 1.25)
Age – – 1.49 (1.13, 1.96)**
Gender – –
 Female (ref.) – – –
 Male – – 3.78 (1.74, 8.21)***
 Another gendera – – –c
Race – – –
 White (ref.) – – –
 Black – – 0.05 (0.003, 0.90)*
 Multiracial – – 0.17 (0.03, 1.10)
 Another raceb – – 0.45 (0.11, 1.91)
Ethnicity – –
 Non-Hispanic (ref.) – – –
 Hispanic – – 0.50 (0.13, 1.85)
Parent education – –
 High school or less – – 3.89 (0.99, 15.2)
 Some college/2-year college/trade school – – 2.10 (0.60, 7.33)
 4-year college graduate – – 2.15 (0.54, 8.61)
 Post-graduate schooling (ref.) – – –
Zip code per capita income (in thousands of dollars) – – 0.96 (0.92, 1.01)
Open in a new tab

Notes:

*

p < 0.05,

**

p < 0.01,

***

p < 0.001.

OR = odds ratio. Estimates weighted to be nationally representative of teens in the United States and pooled over fifteen imputed datasets.

a

Gender category of “Another gender” includes transgender, queer, and another gender not listed

b

Race category of “Another race” includes Asian American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and another race not listed.

c

aOR estimates unreliable due to small sample size within another gender category and thus not reported

3. Discussion

To prevent youth firearm injuries, it is essential to decrease the prevalence of youth carrying firearms (Branas et al., 2009; DuRant et al., 1997; DuRant et al., 1995; Lowry et al., 1998; Pickett et al., 2005). Our research indicates that to achieve this, it is crucial to limit young people’s exposure to both firearm-involved and non-firearm-involved violence. Specifically, we found that witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence were uniquely associated with teens’ firearm carrying behavior, and these associations may be of equal strength.

Exposure to firearm-involved violence and non-firearm-involved violence are separate occurrences, and the presence of one does not necessarily imply the presence of the other. Our analyses indicate that both types of exposure have a significant association with youth firearm carriage, even after accounting for each other. Furthermore, the weak correlation between the two exposures highlights their distinctive nature. Hence, future studies should explore the specific mechanisms through which these two exposures are linked to firearm carriage and examine potential differences in these mechanisms.

Witnessing firearm-involved violence and witnessing firearm-uninvolved violence may increase risk for future firearm carrying through similar mechanisms. For example, both exposures may increase fear and the motivation to carry a firearm for protection. Researchers have previously found that the perceived need for protection or self-defense is a primary motive for adolescent firearm carriage (Oliphant et al., 2019). Witnessing physical violence of any type—regardless of firearm involvement—may decrease teens’ safety perceptions and increase fear (Cooley-Quille et al., 2001; Rasmussen et al., 2004), thereby providing a motivation to carry a firearm for self-defense among some teens.

Because witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence are unique exposures, however, the mechanisms by which they are associated with firearm carriage may also diverge. One mechanism through which firearm-involved violence may be associated with firearm carriage is through norms surrounding the presence of firearms. Specifically, witnessing firearm violence may shape teens’ perceptions that firearm carriage is a normative behavior (Hemenway et al., 2011; Dreams, 2002), and in turn, such perceptions may lead teens to believe that carrying a firearm is the most effective way to protect themselves from future victimization. Future research should investigate the mechanisms through which witnessing firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence are associated with firearm carriage and identify where these mechanisms might overlap or be distinct from each other.

3.1. Limitations

The team was unable to assess the severity and duration of witnessing violence, as all witnessing violence items were dichotomous to reflect if the individual had witnessed the event. Another limitation is the cross-sectional design. As such, causality and proper temporal ordering of variables cannot be established. Finally, the omission of unobserved confounding variables from analyses, such as family violence and/or adverse child experiences, may bias the estimated associations. The present study is novel, however, in that it involves a nationally representative sample to discriminate between witnessing firearm- and non-firearm violence in their associations with youth firearm carriage.

4. Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of identifying the unique associations between different types of violence exposures and firearm carriage among teens. Our findings suggest that witnessing both firearm-involved and non-firearm involved violence are strongly associated with teen firearm carriage. Effective intervention strategies should address both types of violence exposures and consider factors that may weaken associations between witnessing different types of violence and firearm carriage.

Acknowledgments

  • The research presented in this paper is that of the authors and does not reflect that of the funders

  • The Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan approved this study

  • The article contents have not been previously presented elsewhere

  • No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper

  • Data collection for this project was funded through the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1R24HD087149-01A1).

Funding/support

Data collection for this project was funded through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1R24HD087149-01A1).

Abbreviations:

OR

Odds ratio

aOR

Adjusted odds ratio

CI

Confidence interval

Footnotes

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data at this time.

References

  1. Beardslee J, Mulvey E, Schubert C, Allison P, Infante A, Pardini D, 2018. Gun- and non-gun-related violence exposure and risk for subsequent gun carrying among male juvenile offenders. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 57 (4), 274–279. 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.01.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bingenheimer JB, Brennan RT, Earls FJ, 2005. Firearm violence exposure and serious violent behavior. Science. 308 (5726), 1323–1326. 10.1126/science.1110096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Braga AA, Griffiths E, Sheppard K, Douglas S, 2021. Firearm instrumentality: do guns make violent situations more lethal. Annu Rev. Criminol 4 (1), 147–164. [Google Scholar]
  4. Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ, 2009. Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. Am. J. Public Health 99 (11), 2034–2040. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carter PM, Walton MA, Roehler DR, et al. , 2015. Firearm violence among high-risk emergency department youth after an assault injury. Pediatrics 135 (5), 805–815. 10.1542/peds.2014-3572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cooley-Quille M, Boyd RC, Frantz E, Walsh J, 2001. Emotional and behavioral impact of exposure to community violence in inner-dty adolescents. J. Clin. Child Psychol 30 (2), 199–206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dreams Mateu-Gelabert P., 2002. Gangs, and Guns: The Interplay Between Adolescent Violence and Immigration in a New York City Neighborhood Published online.
  8. DuRant RH, Getts AG, Cadenhead C, Woods ER, 1995. The association between weapon carrying and the use of violence among adolescents living in and around public housing. J. Adolesc. Health 17 (6), 376–380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. DuRant RH, Kahn J, Beckford PH, Woods ER, 1997. The association of weapon carrying and fighting on school property and other health risk and problem behaviors among high school students. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med 151 (4), 360–366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. FACTS, 2020. National Survey User Guide Published online August.
  11. Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R, Hamby SL, 2009. Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics 124 (5), 1411–1423. 10.1542/peds.2009-0467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Finkelhor D, Turner HA, Shattuck A, Hamby SL, 2015. Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: results from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. JAMA Pediatr 169 (8), 746. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldstick JE, Carter PM, Heinze JE, Walton MA, Zimmerman M, Cunningham RM, 2019. Predictors of transitions in firearm assault behavior among drug-using youth presenting to an urban emergency department. J. Behav. Med 42 (4), 635–645. 10.1007/s10865-019-00021-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldstick JE, Cunningham RM, Carter PM, 2022. Current causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States. N. EngL J. Med 386 (20), 1955–1956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hamby S, Finkelhor D, Turner H, Kracke K, 2011. Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire-2nd Revision (JVQ-R2) Published online, http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/jvq/index_new.html.
  16. Hemenway D, Prothrow-Stith D, Bergstein JM, Ander R, Kennedy BP, 1996. Gun carrying among adolescents. Law Contemp. Probl 59 (1), 39–53. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hemenway D, Vriniotis M, Johnson RM, Miller M, Azrael D, 2011. Gun carrying by high school students in Boston, MA: does overestimation of peer gun carrying matter? J. Adolesc 34 (5), 997–1003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kelsay JD, Silver IA, Barnes JC, 2020. The association between adolescent gun ownership and gun carrying and adulthood violence and victimization. Violence Viet Published online. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lowry R, Powell KE, Kann L, Collins JL, Kolbe LJ, 1998. Weapon-carrying, physical fighting, and fight-related injury among US adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med 14 (2), 122–129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. McMahon SD, Felix ED, Halpert JA, Petropoulos LA, 2009. Community violence exposure and aggression among urban adolescents: testing a cognitive mediator model. J. Community Psychol 37 (7), 895–910. [Google Scholar]
  21. Oliphant SN, Mouch CA, Rowhani-Rahbar A, et al. , 2019. A scoping review of patterns, motives, and risk and protective factors for adolescent firearm carriage. J. Behav. Med 42 (4), 763–810. 10.1007/s10865-019-00048-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Pickett W, Craig W, Harel Y, et al. , 2005. Cross-national study of fighting and weapon carrying as determinants of adolescent injury. Pediatrics 116 (6), e855–e863. 10.1542/peds.2005-0607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Rasmussen A, Aber MS, Bhana A, 2004. Adolescent coping and neighborhood violence: perceptions, exposure, and urban youths’ efforts to deal with danger. Am. J. Community Psychol 33 (1–2), 61–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Reid JA, Richards TN, Loughran TA, Mulvey EP, 2017. The relationships among exposure to violence, psychological distress, and gun carrying among male adolescents found guilty of serious legal offenses: a longitudinal cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med 166 (6), 412–418. 10.7326/M16-1648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Richters J, Saltzman W, 1990. Survey of Exposure to Community Violence: Self Report Version Published online.
  26. Robitzsch A, Grund S, Henke T, Robitzsch MA, 2017. Package ‘miceadds.’ Vienna R Found Stat Comput Published online.
  27. Salzinger S, Rosario M, Feldman RS, Ng-Mak DS, 2008. Aggressive behavior in response to violence exposure: is it adaptive for middle-school children? J. Community Psychol 36 (8), 1008–1025. [Google Scholar]
  28. Slovak K, Singer M, 2001. Gun violence exposure and trauma among rural youth. Violence Viet 16 (4), 389–400. 10.1891/0886-6708.16.4.389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Spano R, Pridemore WA, Bolland J, 2012. 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. J. Interpers. Violence 27 (1), 158–176. 10.1177/0886260511416471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB, 1996. The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. J. Fam. Issues 17 (3), 283–316. [Google Scholar]
  31. Turner HA, Shattuck A, Finkelhor D, Hamby S, 2016. Polyvictimization and youth violence exposure across contexts. J. Adolesc. Health 58 (2), 208–214. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. WISQARS, 2019. Violence-Related Injury Deaths and Rates per 100,000 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Accessed March 29, 2021. https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The authors do not have permission to share data at this time.

RESOURCES