Kids and Assault Weapons

• Date: 01 May 2005
• Published date: 01 May 2005
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016805275679
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0734016805275679
Criminal Justice Review
Ruddell, Decker / Kids and Assault W eapons
Criminal Justice Review
Volume 30 Number 1
May 2005 45-63
© 2005 Georgia State University
Kids and Assault Weapons:
Research Foundation, Inc.
10.1177/0734016805275679
http://cjr.sagepub.com
hosted at
Social Problem or Social Construction?
http://online.sagepub.com
Rick Ruddell
California State University, Chico
Scott H. Decker
University of Missouri–St. Louis
The sunset of the federal assault weapons ban in September 2004 increased the political and
scholarly debate about the criminal use of such firearms. Some of the debate is alarmist, suggest-
ing that juveniles have easy access to these firearms and are likely to use them in violent offenses.
These perspectives are reinforced on television and in films and contribute to perceptions about
the sophistication of weapons that juveniles possess, as well as to the punishments that juveniles
should face. This study examines firearms recovered from juvenile offenders in both national
and city samples from 1992 to 2000 and finds that assault weapons are seldom used or possessed
by juveniles. Our findings suggest that the disjuncture between popular perceptions and the real-
ity of juvenile gun use has been socially constructed by four different groups: the police, news
and entertainment organizations, interest groups, and juveniles themselves.
Keywords: juvenile gun use; assault weapons; social construction
Bernard(1992)observedthattheUnitedStateshasexperiencedcyclesofjuvenilecrime
crises for over 200 years. The image of a persistent juvenile crime problem is shaped by
politicians, law enforcement, and the entertainment industry in large part through the use of
media images and news reports. These groups all profit by labeling youths as violence-prone
offenders and portraying juvenile crime as rising. In response to this crisis, law enforcement
agencies expanded their personnel and budgets, politicians were elected on crime control
platforms, and the entertainment industry sold the public films, television programs, or music
videos that graphically depicted the escalation of urban youth violence. Last, a number of
scholars have attracted national attention through their dire warnings about potential juvenile
predators, including “the young and the ruthless” (Fox, 1992) or “super-predators” (Bennett,
Dilulio, & Walters, 1996).
Many perceptions about juveniles and their propensity for violence stem from reports
from news organizations about the seriousness of the youth crime problem, even though rates
of violent crime—including youth violence—have been decreasing (Catalano, 2004; Cole,
The authors acknowledge the assistance of Michael Vaughn and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful
comments and suggestions that strengthened and improved this article. Please address correspondence to Rick
Ruddell, Department of Political Science, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA 95929-455.
45

---

46 Criminal Justice Review
1999; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004; Zimring, 2000). Two issues about juvenile
crime are inextricably linked: the pervasiveness and seriousness of juvenile gangs (McCorkle
& Miethe, 2002) and the sophisticated firearms that these juveniles are reputed to possess
(Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Sheley & Wright, 1993; Zimring, 1989). Although juveniles
made substantial contributions to the escalation of homicide rates within the United States
during the 1980s and 1990s (Blumstein, 1995), it is not clear whether the types of firearms
used by juveniles in these violent encounters correspond to the public image of the weapons
involved.
The public view about the types of weapons that a juvenile would be likely to use in a
crime is largely a consequence of media images—in news reports and the entertainment
industry—that emphasize the use of military-style assault weapons (AW) such as the AK-471
or fully automatic firearms such as the Uzi that are able to fire an entire 30-round magazine
with a single pull of the trigger. Although a host of different definitions has been used to
describe AW, the federal government’s definition is a semiautomatic firearm (that requires
the user to pull the trigger for every shot) that has a detachable magazine and has at least two
of the following military-style features: a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet
mount, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher. Typically, these firearms are chambered for
powerful center fire cartridges.
Certainly, these types of firearms represent a substantial increase in firepower contrasted
against the single-shot homemade “zip guns”2 or less powerful “Saturday night specials”
(SNS)3 that their counterparts in the 1950s or 1960s were likely to possess. Although these
perceptions may be supported in the latest film, music video, or television program, we argue
that they are inaccurate. This position is supported by the work of Perrone and Chesney-Lind
(1997). Perrone and Chesney-Lind argue that media accounts of youth violence, weaponry,
and gangs are greatly exaggerated. Indeed, they note the tendency of the media and public
policy groups to overreport levels of youth crime.
This study examines one part of the juvenile crime problem, the unlawful possession of
AW by juveniles. Based on the data, we raise questions about whether the sophistication of
juvenile firearms has been accurately depicted by news organizations, the entertainment
industry, interest groups, politicians, and the police. By better understanding the types of fire-
arms that youths are likely to possess, it might make us reconsider—or at least consider—
how entertainment industries, the police, interest groups, and politicians shape our percep-
tions about juvenile offenders. It is also plausible that the depiction of AW in films or televi-
sion might itself contribute to a “juvenile arms race” if youths perceive that their rivals have
access to more sophisticated firearms and therefore are more motivated to obtain similar guns
so they won’t be “outgunned” (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996).
In addition to extending the empirical literature about juvenile gun use, our goal is to
inform the public policy debate about firearms and juvenile crime and help separate the rhet-
oric from the reality about firearms use. In their study of the effect of the 1994 AW ban, Roth
and Koper (1999) concluded that “gun control policies . . . are highly controversial crime
control measures, and the debates tend to be dominated by anecdotes and emotion rather than
empirical findings” (p. 10). We feel that it is important that policy development and law
enforcement practices be driven by what the research demonstrates about juvenile AW use,
an area with little prior empirical work.

---

Ruddell, Decker / Kids and Assault Weapons 47
Sources of Misperceptions
About Juveniles and Assault Weapons
There is a long tradition of scholarly work that seeks to explain the methods and mecha-
nisms individuals use to understand the world. We interpret and give meaning to our sur-
roundings through a variety of sources, including independent observation, our interrelation-
ships with others, and from external sources. The phenomenological perspective proposed
by Berger and Luckmann (1966) argues that three distinct social processes are involved,
including the construction of ideas (externalization), shifts in our objective reality to under-
stand these impressions (objectivation), and when people are exposed to these agreed-on
“facts” through socialization (internalization). In some cases, political stakeholders have a
vested interest in manipulating these shared definitions. As Beckett and Sasson (2000)
observe, “Our understanding of the significance of crime as a social problem and our views
on its causes and cures depend largely on the way in which the issue is represented” (p. 6).
Many scholars have argued that either news organizations or the government are often
responsible for the construction of myths about issues of crime or justice (Beckett & Sasson,
2000; Kappeler, Blumberg, & Potter, 2000). Kappeler et al. (2000) suggest that the creation
of these myths is functional for the objectives of these organizations. Yet, there are two addi-
tional groups that have contributed to the public’s misperceptions about juveniles and AW.
The third group is juveniles themselves, who may exaggerate their experiences with firearms
to bolster their self-importance. Last, academic researchers, government agencies, and inter-
est groups often categorize adults up to 24 years of age as youth or juveniles, which may mis-
lead the consumers of these studies. Together, these four factions all contribute to our
misperceptions about the juvenile AW problem.
All four of the groups above have used the issue of AW to bolster their revenues, expand
their agencies, increase their agendas, or in the case of youths, enhance their own importance.
Whereas the entertainment industry, interest groups, and government agencies have bene-
fited from these assessments, these inaccurate perceptions have actually harmed juveniles,
by making these youths appear more sophisticated than they actually are and contributing to
tougher sanctions for juvenile offenders. The following paragraphs outline how these differ-
ent stakeholders have used the juvenile AW problem for their own benefit.
Law Enforcement Misperceptions About Assault Weapons
By demonstrating an expansion in crime, government...