1

Gun Violence and Youth

Youths in the United States can be involved with violence as perpetrators, victims, or 

witnesses/bystanders (David–Ferdon and Simon 2014; OJJDP 2014). Violence is the “intentional 

use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against 

a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, 

death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation” (OJJDP 2014, 14). Applying this 

definition to the scope of this literature review, youth gun violence is when a gun or firearm*is 

present in the process of a youth (ages 10–24) intentionally using force or power to threaten or 

harm others. A youth is a victim of gun violence when he or she is injured or killed as a 

consequence of someone (a youth or an adult) intentionally using a gun to threaten or harm

someone (whether the youth victim was the intended target or not).

This literature review will focus on intentional gun violence involving youths ages 10 to 24, 

which includes homicides (victimization and perpetration), nonfatal injuries, suicides, 

community violence, and school violence/school shootings. Unintentional gun violence 

(including accidental injuries or deaths from guns) will not be explored. 

Scope of the Problem

The scope of the problem of youth gun violence in the United States is reflected by the incidence 

and prevalence of gun-related homicides, suicides, and nonfatal injuries of youths.

There are as many as 33,000 gun-related deaths every year in the United States, and youths 24 

and younger represent about 20 percent of that number (Kochanek et al. 2016). Even youths 

who are not hurt or killed by guns but who witness gun violence are likely to experience 

adverse outcomes later in life (Finkelhor et al. 2015b). While mass shootings tend to be the focus 

of national news stories, they account for less than half of 1 percent of gun deaths each year 

(Luca, Malhotra, and Poliquin 2016).

Youth Gun Homicide. Homicide was the third-leading cause of death among youths 10 to 24 

years old in 2014. This reflects a decline from 1999, when homicide was the second-leading 

cause of death among youth (CDC 2016). Between 1993 and 2010, the firearm homicide rate 

declined by 51 percent for 18- to 24-year-olds and by 65 percent for 12- to 17-year-olds (Planty 

and Truman 2013). Similarly, between 1994 and 2010, serious violent crime against 12- to 17-

year-olds involving a firearm declined by 95 percent (White and Lauritsen 2012).

Youth Victims of Gun Homicide. Firearms were the murder weapon in 86 percent of youth

homicides in 2014 (CDC 2016). The following information, using a variety of data sources,

provides greater detail on youth homicides attributable to firearms:

 

*The terms gun and firearm will be used interchangeably throughout the review, depending on the 

terminology in the source of the information.
2

 During 2014, homicides with a firearm accounted for 3,702 homicides committed against 

youths ages 10 to 24 (CDC 2016; Child Trends Databank 2015).

 Of the 3,702 firearm homicides committed against youth, 68 percent were carried out 

against African Americans, 19 percent against Hispanics, 12 percent against whites, and 

1 percent against American Indians/Alaskan Natives or Asians/Pacific Islanders (CDC 

2016).

 Youth firearm homicide victims are more likely to be male, with 89 percent of homicides 

against youths ages 10 to 24 in 2014 committed against males (CDC 2016). 

 Youths ages 15 to 24 experienced a higher rate of homicides with a firearm than any 

other age group, at about 8.2 per 100,000 people (CDC 2016; Kochanek et al. 2016). 

 During 2009–10, 70 percent of all firearm homicides of 10- to 19-year-olds were 

committed in the most populous metropolitan statistical areas in the country (Kegler 

and Mercy 2013). 

Overall, these trends reflect that youth homicide victims ages 15 to 24 are more likely to be male

and African American or Hispanic and to live in highly populous/urban areas of the country

(Planty and Truman 2013; Teplin et al. 2015).

Youths Who Commit Gun Homicides. Based on the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) 

Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHRs), there were an estimated 3,374 homicides with a 

firearm committed by known 12- to 24-year-olds in 2014 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 

2016). 

 Of the estimated 3,374 homicides committed by known youths, 70 percent of the cases

involved an African American individual, 27 percent of cases involved a white

individual, and 1 percent were American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, or Pacific 

Islanders (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 2016). The UCR SHR demographic data 

cannot be broken down by ethnicity (Hispanic versus non-Hispanic).

 Males accounted for more than 90 percent of the known 12- to 24-year-olds who 

committed a homicide with a firearm in 2014 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 

2016). 

 The estimated number of firearm-related homicides committed by known juvenile 

offenders (ages 12–17) more than quadrupled between 1984 and 1994, from 543 to 2,271. 

However, between 1994 and 2001 the rate of firearm-related homicides committed by 

juveniles declined. Firearm-related homicides by juveniles increased by 50 percent from

2001 to 2007, but decreased from 2007 to 2014 by 39 percent (OJJDP 2016a).

Overall, these trends reflect that the majority of firearm-related homicides involving known 

youths are perpetrated by males and African Americans. 

Nonfatal Gun Violence. There is conflicting information about whether the trend in nonfatal 

firearm-related violence has been increasing or decreasing over time. Data from the Centers for 
3

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—which is primarily based on reports from U.S. 

emergency departments—indicate that nonfatal gunshot injuries (specifically rates of assaults 

and self-harm) are increasing. However, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) suggest there has been a decline in rates of nonfatal firearm 

victimizations of youths, which includes victimization reports in which the offender had shown

or used a firearm (Planty and Truman 2013; Truman and Langton 2015). Using available data 

from these sources, the following trends emerge when the scope is limited to those ages 12 to 17 

and 18 to 24: 

 According to CDC (2016) estimates, there was a roughly 7 percent increase in the rate of

nonfatal firearm gunshot injuries for youths ages 12 to 17 from 2001 to 2014 (from 21.1 to 

22.6 per 100,000) and a 20 percent increase for youths ages 18 to 24 (from 59.5 to 71.2 per 

100,000).

 In contrast, the NCVS reported that the rate for nonfatal firearm victimizations against

youths 12 to 17 declined by about 36 percent between 2001 and 2011 (from 2.2 to 1.4 per 

1,000). Further, the rate declined by about 24 percent for 18- to 24-year-olds during the 

same period (from 6.8 to 5.2 per 1,000) [Planty and Truman 2013].

Disparities between these two data sources could explain differences between the reported 

trends. Planty and Truman (2013, 11) acknowledge the differences in NCVS and CDC trend 

data. Their report notes that NCVS is a residential household survey and does not include

hidden populations such as those who are homeless or institutionalized (e.g., jails or mental 

health facilities). Further, some of the CDC estimates used to calculate injury trends may be 

based on small sample sizes, and should be interpreted with caution.

Youth Gun Suicide. According to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System, suicide was the 

10th-leading cause of death in the United States in 2014; however, it was the second-leading 

cause of death in youths 10 to 24 years old (Kochanek et al. 2016; CDC 2016). This is in contrast 

to suicide’s rank as the third-leading cause of death among youths 10 to 24 in 1999, showing

that while homicides may be decreasing for youths suicides are increasing (CDC 2016). 

 Of the 5,504 youths ages 10 to 24 who died by suicide in 2014, almost half (2,444) were 

carried out with a firearm (Child Trends Databank 2015; CDC 2016).

 Of the 2,444 suicides with a firearm by youths 10 to 24 years old in 2014, 76 percent were 

white, 10 percent were African American, 10 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent were 

by American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders (CDC 2016). 

 Males ages 10 to 24 years old (88 percent) were more likely than their female 

counterparts to kill themselves with a firearm (12 percent) [CDC 2016].

Overall, the numbers suggest that the majority of suicides committed by 10– to 24-year-olds are 

male and white.
4

Community Gun Violence. While youths can be directly exposed to gun violence—through 

victimization or perpetration—they can also be indirectly exposed, by witnessing gun violence

in their communities (Listenbee et al. 2012). Youths who witness gun violence experience 

similar negative psychological and physical harm as youths who have had direct exposure

(Futures Without Violence 2016).

There are various forms of violence that youths may witness in their lifetimes, including 

assaults, physical abuse, thefts, and shootings. According to the National Survey of Children’s 

Exposure to Violence (most recently conducted in 2014), about 38 percent of children age 17 and 

younger have witnessed violence in the family or the community in their lifetimes (Finkelhor et 

al. 2015a). With regard to specific exposure to gun violence:

 About 8 percent of children reported being exposed to a shooting (including hearing 

gunshots or seeing someone shot) in their lifetimes, with children 14 to 17 years 

reporting the highest levels of exposure to a shooting (13 percent). Additionally, boys 

were more likely than girls to report exposure to shootings (Finkelhor et al. 2015a).

 Youth exposure to shootings has decreased between 2008 and 2014, although this change 

has been minimal (Finkelhor et al. 2014; Finkelhor et al. 2015a).

 Youths are more likely to witness assault in their communities in their lifetimes than to 

be exposed to a shooting (28 percent compared with 8 percent, respectively) [Finkelhor 

et al. 2015a].

 Although the national level of youth exposure to shootings is low, violent crimes in 

urban areas are more likely to involve guns than those in suburban or rural areas

(Duhart 2000).

Overall, although exposure to gun violence isn’t as prevalent as other forms of community 

violence, it is still a potentially traumatic event that many youths will experience in their 

lifetimes.

School Gun Violence. During the school year of 2011–12, school-related homicides accounted for 

less than 2 percent of all homicides (Child Trends Databank 2015; Robers et al. 2012; Planty and 

Truman 2013). While school shootings are rare, most homicides against youth at school were 

committed with a firearm (Planty and Truman 2013). 

 During the 2009-10 school year, there were 1,749 reports of firearm possession incidents 

at schools (a rate of 3.5 per 100,000 people). During the 2013–14 school year, this number 

decreased to 1,501 (a rate of 3.0 per 100,000) [Zhang, Musu–Gillette, and Oudekerk 

2016].

 About 4 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day 

during the previous 30 days in 2015, a decline from about 12 percent in 1993 (Zhang, 

Musu–Gillette, and Oudekerk 2016; Kann et al. 2016). 
5

 In 2013, 3.7 percent of students ages 12 to 18 reported having access to a loaded gun 

without adult permission, either at school or away from school, which is a decrease from 

6.7 percent in 2007 (Zhang, Musu–Gillette, and Oudekerk 2016).

 White male students were more likely to have carried a gun than any other demographic 

(Kann et al. 2016).

School Shootings. According to Stanford’s Mass Shootings in America database, there have been 

an estimated 220 victims in school-related mass shootings, 140 of which were fatalities, from the

Columbine High School (Littleton, Colo.) shooting in 1999 through the Umpqua Community 

College (Roseburg, Ore.) shooting in 2015* (Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries 

2016).

Bushman and colleagues (2016) examined the differences between and similarities of school 

shooters and street shooters. Overall, they noted that school shooters generally were white, 

male adolescents from stable, low-crime towns or suburbs, and they generally did not know the 

people they killed personally. Conversely, street shooters tend to live in densely populated 

areas with high crime levels and poverty rates, and they tend to aim to hurt or kill individuals 

they know. In addition, using data from the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities

(the most recent data available), the report authors found that nearly half of all street shooters 

under age 18 obtain their weapons from street or black market sources, 37 percent receive them 

from a friend or family member, and 13 percent steal them. In contrast, findings from other data 

sources have shown that more than half of school shooters obtain their weapons from home or a 

relative (Bushman et al. 2016).

International Comparisons of Youth Gun Violence. In 2012, firearms were involved in nearly 50 

percent of all homicides committed worldwide (Butchart and Mikton 2014; Kieselbach and 

Butchart 2014; Mikton et al. 2016). In addition, according to a World Health Organization global 

status report on violence prevention, 43 percent of annual homicides worldwide involve youths

ages 10 to 29 years (Butchart and Mikton 2014). Youths are disproportionately affected by 

homicide regardless of country level of income (Butchart and Mikton 2014; Mikton et al. 2016); 

however, the youth homicide rate in the United States is higher than other high-income 

countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, United Kingdom) [Bushman et al. 2016; David–Ferdon and 

Simon 2014]. For example, in 2003, the firearm homicide rate among U.S. youths ages 15 to 24 

was 42 times as high as the rate for youths in similar high-income nations (Richardson and 

Hemenway 2011).

 

*This number includes shootings at the following schools: Columbine High School; Appalachian School of Law

(Grundy, Va.); University of Arizona College of Nursing (Tucson, Ariz.); Red Lake High School (Red Lake Indian 

Reservation, Minn.); West Nickel Mines Amish School (Bart Township, Pa.); Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University (Blacksburg, Va.); Northern Illinois University (DeKalb, Ill.); Chardon (Ohio) High School; Oikos 

University (Oakland, Calif.); Sandy Hook Elementary School (Newtown, Conn.); University of California, Santa 

Barbara (Isla Vista); Marysville (Wash.) Pilchuck High School; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of 

Dentistry; and Umpqua Community College.
6

Gun Prevalence Compared With Other Weapons. From 2004 through 2013, most violent 

victimizations committed by adolescents ages 12 to 17 were simple assaults that did not involve 

a weapon. However, among homicides with a weapon committed by youth, firearms were the 

weapon of choice (Oudekerk and Morgan 2016).

 According to the SHRs, of the 4,743 reported homicides committed by youths ages 12 to 

24 with a weapon in 2014, 71 percent were carried out by firearm (Puzzanchera, 

Chamberlin, and Kang 2016). In contrast, about 12 percent were committed with a knife, 

6 percent were committed with a personal weapon (e.g., hands, fists, feet), 8 percent 

were committed with another type (e.g., poison) or unknown weapon, and only 3 

percent were committed with a blunt object (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 2016). 

Risk Factors for Youth Gun Violence

A significant body of research suggests that youth engagement in the most serious forms of 

violence is strongly linked to the convergence and interaction of individual, family, peer, 

school, and community risk factors (Hawkins et al. 2000; Herrenkohl et al. 2012; Shetgiri et al. 

2016). Risk factors are categorized as having the ability to increase the likelihood of youth 

violence (Jolliffe et al. 2016). There is no single risk factor or specific combination of risk factors 

that can predict who is more likely to engage in violent behavior (Mmari, Blum, and Teufel–

Shone 2010) However, the more individual, family, peer, school, and community risk factors 

present in a youth’s life, the greater the probability of youth violence (Reingle, Jennings, and 

Maldonado–Molina 2012; Williamson, Guerra, and Tynan 2014) [for more information, see the 

Model Programs Guide literature review on Risk Factors for Delinquency].

Nevertheless, while little research has yet to be conducted on specific risk factors for youth gun 

violence, the risk factors associated with serious youth violence are relevant to any discussion of 

youth gun violence. Among the known risk factors for youth violence, emotional distress, 

violence exposure, alcohol use, and peer delinquency have been directly linked to youth gun 

violence. Of these risk factors, the strongest and most consistent predictor of youth gun violence

is the exposure to or a history of violence (Shetgiri et al. 2016). In addition, the access to and

availability of firearms increase the likelihood of weapon-related violence among youth (Miller, 

Azrael, and Hemenway 2002; Slovak and Singer 2001; Lizotte et al. 1994).

Exposure to Violence. Research suggests there is a cumulative effect of risk factors across 

individual, family, peer, school, and community domains that increases the probability of youth 

gun violence (Mmari, Blum, and Teufel–Shone 2010). The events and circumstances 

characteristic of the environment (home, community, and school) have an influence on the 

development of individual risk factors for gun violence. For example, “Sixty percent of all U.S. 

youths report exposure to some form of violence... in a given year” (Zimmerman and Posick 

2016, 178). Exposure to violence refers to direct exposure (personal victimization) or indirect 

exposure (witnessing or hearing about the victimization of a family member, friend, or 
7

neighbor) [Zimmerman and Posick 2016]. Studies suggest a significant relationship between 

exposure to guns and shootings and psychological trauma (Slovak and Singer 2001). Violence 

exposure is linked to emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder 

(Margolin and Gordis 2000). The psychological injuries connected to the exposure to violence 

are often ignored, but this is problematic since the most significant predictor of future violent 

behavior for both male and female youths is a history of violence (Hawkins et al. 2000). 

Access and Availability to Firearms. Violence exposure and violence commission predict each 

other over time (Henrich, Brookmeyer, and Shahar 2005). Thus, what differentiates youth gun 

violence from other serious forms of violence is the presence of a firearm. The access and 

availability to firearms is a facilitating factor in youth gun violence (Shetgiri et al. 2016; Miller, 

Azrael, and Hemenway 2002; Lizotte et al. 1994). Youths who have witnessed violence in their 

environments are more likely to become involved in assaultive behavior and carry weapons 

(Patchin et al. 2006). In these instances violent behavior progresses from physical fighting to 

more deadly forms, such as gun violence (Dahlberg and Potter 2001). Part of what enables

youths to progress to more deadly forms of violence is related to their access to and the 

availability of firearms in their homes and communities (Williamson, Guerra, and Tynan 2014). 

Youths who live in homes where firearms are present but not safely stored are more likely to be 

involved in some form of gun violence (Johnson et al. 2010). Weapons have become a significant 

element in the homicide and suicide deaths among teens (Slovak and Singer 2001). Community 

violence has led to a prevailing fear, among youth, of being shot (Powell, Sheehan, and 

Christoffel 1996) and weapon-carrying in self-defense (Shetgiri et al. 2016). Consequently, of all 

risk factors associated with youth violence, exposure to violence and availability of firearms 

most increase the likelihood of engaging in youth gun violence.

Notably, however, there is significant variation in the impact of risk factors on youths. Certain 

psychological and biological characteristics—including hyperactivity and antisocial behavior—

link male youths to more serious forms of violent behavior than female youths, (Kodjo, 

Auinger, and Ryan 2001; Bolland 2003). Female youths who are exposed to violence are more 

likely to internalize their symptoms and are less likely than male youths to cope in positive 

manners, leading to other individual risk factors (Rosario et al. 2008). Whites and Asians tend to 

witness crime less often than African American and Hispanic youths do. Yet, even when 

compared with Hispanic youths, black youths were more vulnerable to violent behavior in that 

they tended to live in neighborhoods with higher levels of violent crime and were more likely to 

engage in violent crime themselves (Luthar and Goldstein 2004). Male youths from all racial 

and ethnic backgrounds have a greater likelihood of dying from a gunshot wound, compared 

with all other natural causes combined (Jones and Krisberg 1994). Consequently, research 

suggests that there may be gender, racial, and ethnic differences in the factors that lead to youth 

gun violence (Shetgiri et al. 2016).
8

Protective Factors Against Youth Gun Violence

Resiliency theory indicates that some youths exposed to such risk factors do not develop 

negative, violent behaviors because of the influence of protective factors (Stoddard et al. 2013).

Protective factors are the events, opportunities, and experiences in the lives of youth that lessen 

or buffer against the probability of violence (Resnick, Ireland, and Borowsky 2004). Protective 

factors help youths overcome the negative effects of risk factors and are essential in helping 

them compensate for or protect against the effects of risk on healthy development (Fergus and 

Zimmerman 2005) [for more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on

Protective Factors Against Delinquency].

Parent and School Connectedness. Of these protective factors for serious forms of youth 

violence, there are two that have been shown to make a slight impact of youth gun violence. 

Research suggests that parent and school connectedness counterbalance the risk of exposure to,

and committing, violence (Luthar and Goldstein 2004). Parental presence and proper 

supervision can assist in controlling where and with whom youths spend their time, thus 

reducing the likelihood of violence exposure (Henrich, Brookmeyer, and Shahar 2005). 

However, parental connectedness may be a significant buffer against violence only for Latinos 

and not whites and African Americans (Shetgiri et al. 2016). High education aspirations and the 

physical interventions often found in schools, such as the use of weapon detectors, allow for the 

development of a safe connection to the school environment (Henrich, Brookmeyer, and Shahar 

2005.) However, high educational aspirations are a protective factor only for Latinos and 

African Americans (Shetgiri et al. 2016), and the effects of school connectedness on exposure to 

weapon violence may not extend beyond the building walls (Henrich, Brookmeyer, and Shahar 

2005). Given the racial and ethnic disparities for these protective factors, caution should be 

taken to not generalize their ability to protect and buffer against youth gun violence for all 

youth.

Overall, given the paucity of research on risk and protective factors that directly affect youth 

gun violence, more attention should be paid to this area of research. Knowing what factors 

increase or decrease the risk for all forms of youth violence is necessary to the process of 

designing empirically based gun prevention strategies (Herrenkohl et al. 2000). Concentrated 

prevention efforts to enhance protective factors, such as parental and school connectedness,

may help youth overcome the debilitating effects of risks, such as exposure to violence and the 

access to and the availability of firearms (Stoddard et al. 2013) and ultimately make a significant 

impact on youth gun violence.
9

Policy Research on Guns

Federal Laws. There are numerous federal laws that regulate gun purchases made from 

licensed sellers.

 The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. These laws created 

regulations with regard to the selling of firearms. Under the GCA, businesses selling 

firearms were required to obtain a federal firearm license (FFL), and interstate sales of 

firearms were limited to only those sellers with FFLs. In addition, the GCA established 

several new requirements, such as

 Prohibiting certain individuals (for example, those convicted of a felony offense)

from buying firearms

 Making it a crime to sell or transfer a firearm to someone who is forbidden from 

possessing one

 Requiring buyers to sign a form stating that had not been convicted of a felony or 

were otherwise disqualified by law from purchasing a gun

However, the GCA did not regulate firearms transfers made by private gun owners 

(Webster and Wintemute 2015). The GCA set age restrictions for the purchase and 

transfer of handguns and long guns (i.e., rifles and shotguns):

 A person must be at least 18 years old to purchase a long gun from a licensed 

gun seller; however, there is no age restriction on a person to possess a long gun 

or buy a long gun from a private seller. 

 A person must be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun from a licensed 

gun seller but may be only 18 to be transferred a handgun from someone who is 

not a licensed gun dealer or to possess a handgun (Webster and Wintemute 

2015).

 The Youth Handgun Safety Act. The act was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control 

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and decreased the legal age of possessing a handgun

to 18 (OJJDP 1996).

 The Gun-Free Schools Act. The act also took effect in 1994, and amended part of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, requiring schools receiving federal 

education funds to adopt a policy that required expulsion (for no less than 1 year) for 

any student who brings a firearm to school (OJJDP 1996). 

 The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act was also enacted in 1993, 

establishing several new requirements and standards to sell and purchase firearms (for 

example, a 5-day waiting period before a licensed seller, manufacturer, or importer 

could transfer a gun to a buyer, and mandatory background checks were required for all 

individuals looking to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers). Like the GCA, the 

Brady Act exempted background checks for firearm transfers made by private gun 

owners (Webster and Wintemute 2015; Cook and Ludwig 2013; Fleegler et al. 2013). 

 The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS was created 

under the Brady Act to help conduct the mandatory background check. Launched in 
10

1998, NICS has completed more than 200 million background checks, with about 1.1 

million denials (FBI 2014).

State Laws. A recent study on state gun laws found almost 3,200 laws had been passed between 

1990 and 2014, including laws to loosen or tighten gun restrictions (Luca, Malhotra, and 

Poliquin 2016).

Transactions involving guns generally take place by two means: through licensed businesses or 

through private sellers. Because federal laws regulate gun purchases by licensed sellers but do 

not regulate sales made by private gun owners, many states have attempted to regulate gun 

sales by private, unlicensed sellers (Braga and Hureau 2015).

Following are descriptions of three types of state laws that govern gun sales made by licensed 

and unlicensed sellers.

 Permit to Purchase (PTP). Approximately 11 states have PTP laws, which require 

individuals to obtain a permit or license (contingent on a background check) before 

purchasing a handgun, from either licensed businesses or private sellers (Crifasi et al. 

2015). PTP laws vary by state; for instance, some states require people to get permits in 

person, while others allow permits to be obtained online or by mail (Webster and 

Wintemute 2015). However, these laws wouldn’t directly affect youths under 21—the 

minimum age set by federal law to purchase a handgun.

 Background Checks. Although the Brady Act requires mandatory background checks for 

all individuals looking to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers, sales by private 

gun owners are exempted from this requirement. However, some states have sought to 

strengthen the Brady background checks (Rudolph et al. 2015). Approximately 17 states 

and the District of Columbia have adopted stricter background check requirements for 

private sellers (Rudolph et al. 2015). For example, in Massachusetts, citizens are required 

by law to report all sales, transfers, inheritances, and losses of firearms to the Firearms 

Record Bureau. This law covers private transactions of guns (Braga and Hureau 2015). 

 Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws. CAP laws are examples of laws specifically focused 

on preventing youth from accessing guns. CAP laws make it a crime to store firearms in 

a way that can be easily accessible to youth (Webster et al. 2004). Since 1981, some 26 

states and the District of Columbia have passed a CAP law. CAP laws may vary by state 

on factors such as the requirements to store a firearm or the criminal liability of gun 

owners if youth gain access to a firearm (which can result in fines, imprisonment, or 

both) [Anderson and Sabia 2016].

Impact of State and Federal Legislation. There are only a limited number of studies examining 

the effectiveness of firearm legislation at the state and federal levels. Cook and Ludwig (2013) 

examined the impact of the Brady Act on rates of homicides and suicides by comparing 32 

states affected by the law with 18 states that already had background checks in place before the 

law’s passage. The findings showed that although firearm-related homicide rates declined
11

nationwide following the law’s enactment, there was no statistically discernible difference in the 

reduction of homicide trends between Brady states and non-Brady states. The result was similar 

for suicide rates, except for a significant difference in suicide rates for adults 55 and older (no 

other age group was affected) [Cook and Ludwig 2013; Webster and Wintemute 2015]. 

However, the study included only data on rates of homicides and suicides of adults 21 and

older. The study authors argued that the GCA had already set the minimum age limits to buy 

and possess a firearm; thus, the Brady Act would likely not affect access to guns by those under 

21 (Cook and Ludwig 2013). Therefore, the possible specific impact the Brady Act did or didn’t 

have on youth homicide and suicide rates is not known.

Marvell (2001) examined the impact that juvenile gun possession bans has made on reducing 

gun homicides, especially of youths. The study looked at the impact of state and federal laws 

that banned juveniles from possessing guns (specifically those laws passed in the early 1970s 

through 1994). The focus was on homicides and gun homicides of 15- to 24-year-olds. Overall, 

the results suggested that the various laws with juvenile handgun bans made little or no impact 

on crime measures, including gun homicides of youths.

With regard to state laws, a study of Connecticut’s PTP law found a reduction in homicide rates 

following passage of the law (Rudolph et al. 2015), while a study of the repeal of Missouri’s PTP 

law found an increase in firearm homicides and diversion of guns to criminals (Webster, Crifasi, 

and Vernick 2014). However, these studies were done with state-level data (that include rates of 

both adults and juveniles); therefore, it is unclear what the impact of PTP laws is specifically on 

youth-related gun violence and homicides. Conversely, studies of CAP laws have examined the 

impact of such legislation on youth. Studies have found reductions in unintentional shooting 

deaths of children (Webster and Starnes 2000), reductions in youth suicides (Webster et al. 

2004), and reductions in reports of gun carrying by youths (Anderson and Sabia 2016).

Public Health Perspective on Gun Violence

Researchers, public health officials, and medical experts have suggested that because of the 

interrelated individual–familial–community risk factors and the large number of individuals 

affected, gun violence is also a public health issue (IOM and NRC 2013b; Butkus et al. 2014). 

The public health field is concerned with problems that are related to significant levels of 

morbidity and mortality (for example, viruses, diseases, or other illnesses) in communities and 

the general public. A public health approach has three important components: “1) a focus on 

prevention, 2) a focus on scientific methodology to identify risk and patterns, and 3) 

multidisciplinary collaboration to address the issue” (IOM and NRC 2013b, 3). 

Public health strategies generally concentrate on the relationships of three elements: 1) the 

“agent” (or the source of the injury, which in the case of gun violence would be the gun or the 

shooter or both); 2) the “host” (which would be the victim of the gun violence); and 3) the 
12

“environment” (which would be the condition under which the violence occurred, including 

social, physical, or even virtual environments that affect gun policies, norms, and behaviors) 

[IOM and NRC 2013b].

Although justice personnel may be primarily responsible for the apprehension, prosecution, 

and sanctioning of gun violence offenders, using a public health approach to combat the 

dilemma of youth gun violence allows for justice policymakers and practitioners to use a 

comprehensive, collaborative method that can be informed by research from different fields that 

have successes in reducing and preventing other behavior-related issues (for example, tobacco 

use and motor vehicle fatalities). 

One example of an initiative influenced by the public health approach is the Shared Framework 

to Reduce Youth Violence and Promote Well-Being. The Shared Framework is a collaborative 

effort between the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the CDC designed 

to help concentrate and strengthen the collective action to reduce youth violence and ensure 

healthy and safe futures for children and youth. The Shared Framework includes a vision 

statement, values, principles for action, and a logic model showing the means to attain goals 

(OJJDP 2014). The Share Framework draws on previous models, including the public health 

approach to preventing youth violence. 

Outcome Evidence

This section presents several evidence-based practices and programs that were shown to 

significantly reduce the occurrence of gun violence, including homicides, assaults, and other 

measures of violent crime. Overall, there is evidence supporting that interventions can reduce 

violent crime and offending in juveniles, and gun violence in general; however there is less 

evidence supporting reductions in juvenile gun violence. The following are examples from 

CrimeSolutions.gov and the Model Programs Guide that represent some of the most relevant 

interventions to youth gun violence.

Interventions Specifically Focused on Reducing Gun Violence. The Reducing Gun Violence

practice concentrated on interventions that aimed to reduce the threat to public safety caused by 

firearms and to decrease the number of illegal firearms or weapons in the possession of 

criminals. This practice had an overall weak to moderate effect on gun crime (note no 

distinction was made about youth or overall gun crime). However, this practice is diverse; the 

effects reported in a meta-analysis by Makarios and Pratt (2012) of different types of programs 

under the umbrella included law enforcement campaigns to reduce gun violence, gun laws, and 

gun buy-back programs. 

The most promising program strategies were

1. Community interventions, such as Operation Ceasefire 
13

2. Hot spots policing strategies 

3. Weapon ban laws

4. Stricter probation requirements for juvenile gun offenders, though the authors noted 

there were limited data on this strategy 

The meta-analysis found that enhanced prison terms, waiting periods, and background checks 

had little effect on reducing gun violence. No significant relationships were found between 

reduced gun crimes and prosecutorial strategies such as harsher sentencing, safe storage laws, 

and gun buy-back programs (that is, these programs were found to have no effect on reducing 

gun violence). 

Community-Driven Interventions. Focused Deterrence Strategies is a person-based practice 

composed of several steps, beginning with selecting a particular crime problem such as youth 

homicide, convening an interagency working group (e.g., law enforcement, social services), and 

developing a response to targeted offenders or groups of offenders that uses a variety of 

sanctions (“pulling levers”) to stop continued violent behavior (Braga and Weisburd 2012). A 

meta-analysis by Braga and Weisburd (2012) revealed that focused deterrence strategies have 

shown a significant, moderate effect on overall crime reduction.

The program Operation Ceasefire, developed in Boston, Mass., is a problem-solving police 

strategy that aims to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence and has 

been replicated and modified by other communities. Braga and colleagues (Braga et al. 2001; 

Braga and Pierce 2005) found statistically significant decreases in youth homicides and gun assaults

and recovered new handguns.

Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership, based on Ceasefire, targeted high-risk chronic 

offenders (adults and juveniles) to reduce gun violence in Indianapolis, Ind., and has been 

found to be related to reduced gun- and non-gun-related homicides across all ages (McGarrell 

et al. 2006; Corsaro and McGarrell 2010).

Operation Peacekeeper, based in Stockton, Calif., was designed to reduce gang involvement 

and violence among urban youths ages 10 to 18 through the use of Youth Outreach Workers 

serving as mentors for youths in neighborhood settings (Braga 2008). Evaluation results have 

found a decrease in gun-homicide incidents.

Cure Violence, in Chicago, Ill., takes a public health approach, using trained street violence 

interrupters and outreach workers, public education campaigns, and community mobilization 

to reduce shootings and killings (Skogan et al. 2008). Evaluation results found Cure Violence 

was associated with decreases in shootings, killings, and retaliatory homicides in some 

neighborhoods.
14

The Milwaukee (Wisc.) Homicide Review Commission (MHRC) aims to reduce homicides and 

nonfatal shootings through a multilevel, multidisciplinary, and multiagency homicide review 

process. Azrael, Braga, and O’Brien (2013) found that the implementation was associated with a 

statistically significant decrease in homicides from January 1999 through December 2006.

Hot Spots Policing Interventions. Hot Spots Policing is a place-based practice in which law 

enforcement agencies expend limited resources in small geographic areas, usually in urban 

settings, where crime is concentrated and highly predictable (Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 

2012). Overall, hot spots policing has been shown to have a significant but small effect on 

reducing crime, though youth gun violence was not assessed.

Overall, there are a variety of interrelated programs and practices that appear to be effective at 

or promising for reducing violence and gun violence. There are some limitations to the research, 

such as the issue of generalizability of the findings to other cities or communities. In addition, 

there are but a limited number of programs and practices that have examined the specific 

impact on youth gun violence.

Conclusion

The data available on the incidents of gun violence in the United States show how greatly youth

are affected. Available data can describe how many youths are involved in gun violence every 

year (either perpetrating, witnessing, or being a victim of gun violence). However, the numbers 

cannot explain why youth gun violence is so prevalent. One issue is the lack of research focused 

exclusively on the causes, correlates, and consequences of youth gun violence. For instance, 

although research has examined the risk and protective factors related to youth violence in 

general, gun violence is usually not specifically focused on, but rather grouped together with 

other forms of violence, such as school or community violence. Some information is known 

about the risk factors related to youth gun violence (for example, the exposure to or a history of 

violence and the access to and availability of firearms are strong predictors of the occurrence of 

violence). Nevertheless, a great deal about the complexity of youth gun violence still is not 

known. Specific and well-defined research examining the prevalence and predictors of youth 

gun violence would help inform future policies and programs designed to reduce gun violence 

involving youth.

Some laws and policies that have been enacted at the federal and state levels are intended to 

reduce youths’ access to guns. But while these laws restrict gun access to those under certain 

age thresholds (18 in some cases and 21 in others), with few exceptions the laws do not 

otherwise directly target youth behavior. As more information is gathered and analyzed, more 

informed policies can be developed to effectively address the issue of youth gun violence.
15

Moreover, many specific programs, using a public health approach, have been developed to 

target various forms of community-based violence, including youth gun violence. Several of 

these programs have been shown to reduce measures of violence; however, few programs have 

been evaluated to determine the particular impact on youth gun violence. What research is 

available can help guide programming efforts focused on reducing youth gun violence. For 

example, some promising strategies to reduce gun violence are community interventions (such 

as Operation Ceasefire and Cure Violence), hot spot policing practices, and weapon ban laws

(Makarios and Pratt 2012). Future research should explore how these strategies can be tailored 

to the specific issue of youth gun violence. 

References

Abt, Thomas, and Christopher Winship. 2016. What Works in Reducing Community Violence: A 

Meta-Review and Field Study for the Northern Triangle. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for 

International Development.

Anderson, D. Mark, and Joseph J. Sabia. 2016. Child Access Prevention Laws, Youth Gun Carrying, 

and School Shootings. Discussion Paper No. 9830. Bonn, Germany: Institutes for the Study of 

Labor. http://ftp.iza.org/dp9830.pdf

Azrael, Deborah, Anthony A. Braga, and Mallory O’Brien. 2013. Developing the Capacity to 

Understand and Prevent Homicide: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Battin, Sara R., Karl G. Hill, Robert D. Abbott, Richard F. Catalano, and J. David Hawkins. 1998. 

“The Contribution of Gang Membership to Delinquency Beyond Delinquent Friends.” 

Criminology 36(1):93–116.

Bolland, John M. 2003. “Hopelessness and Risk Behavior Among Adolescents Living in HighPoverty Inner-City Neighborhoods.” Journal of Adolescence 26(2):14558.

Borowsky, Iris W., Rachel L. Widome, and Michael D. Resnick. 2008. “Young People and 

Violence.” International Encyclopedia of Public Health 6:67584.

Braga, Anthony. 2008. “Pulling Levers Focused Deterrence Strategies and the Prevention of Gun 

Homicide.” Journal of Criminal Justice 36(4):332–43.

Braga, Anthony A., and David M. Hureau. 2015. “Strong Gun Laws Are Not Enough: The Need 

for Improved Enforcement of Secondhand Gun Transfer Laws in Massachusetts.” Preventive 

Medicine 79:37–42.

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Elin J. Waring, and Anne Morrison Piehl. 2001. 

“Problem-Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s 

Operation Ceasefire.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(3):195225.

Braga, Anthony A., Andrew V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau. 2012. “The Effects of Hot 

Spots Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Justice 

Quarterly iFirst:1–31.
16

Braga, Anthony A., and Glenn L. Pierce. 2005. “Disrupting Illegal Firearms Markets in Boston: 

The Effects of Operation Ceasefire on the Supply of New Handguns to Criminals.” 

Criminology & Public Policy 4(4):71748.

Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd. 2012. “The Effects of ‘Pulling Levers’ Focused 

Deterrence Strategies on Crime.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 6.

Brookmeyer, Kathryn A., Christopher C. Henrich, and Mary E. Schwab–Stone. 2005. 

“Adolescents Who Witness Community Violence: Can Parent Support and Prosocial 

Cognitions Protect Them From Committing Violence?” Child Development 76(4):91729.

Bushman, Brad J., Sandra L. Calvert, Mark Dredze, Nina G. Jablonski, Calvin Morrill, Daniel 

Romer, Katherine Newman, Geraldine Downey, Michael Gottfredson, Ann Masten, Daniel 

B. Neill, and Daniel W. Webster. 2016. “Youth Violence: What We Know and What We 

Need to Know.” American Psychologist 71(1):1739.

Butchart, Alexander, and Christopher Mikton. 2014. Global Status Report on Violence Prevention, 

2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs 

and Crime, and United Nations Development Program.

Butkus, Renee, Robert Doherty, and Hilary Daniel, for the Health and Public Policy Committee 

of the American College of Physicians. 2014. “Reducing Firearm-Related Injuries and Deaths 

in the United States: Executive Summary of a Policy Position Paper From the American 

College of Physicians.” Annals of Internal Medicine 160:858–60.

(CDC) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. N.d. “Striving to Reduce Youth Violence 

Everywhere.” Fact Sheet. Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, Injury Prevention & Control, Division of 

Violence Prevention. https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/stryve/docs/Stryve.pdf

CDC. 2016. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National 

Center for Injury Prevention and Control. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Child Trends Databank. 2015. Teen Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm Deaths. Bethesda Md. 

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-homicide-suicide-and-firearm-deaths

Cook, Phillip J., and Jens Ludwig. 2013. “The Limited Impact of the Brady Act: Evaluation and 

Implications.” In Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick (eds.). Reducing Gun Violence in 

America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins 

University, 21–32.

Cornell, Dewey, Peter Sheras, Anne Gregory, and Xitao Fan. 2009. “A Retrospective Study of 

School Safety Conditions in High Schools Using the Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines 

Versus Alternative Approaches.” School Psychology Quarterly 24(2):119.

Corsaro, Nicholas, and Edmund McGarrell. 2010. “Reducing Homicide Risk in Indianapolis 

Between 1997 and 2000.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 

87(5):851–64.

Crifasi, Cassandra K., John Speed Meyers, Jon S. Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster. 2015. “Effects 

of Changes in Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Laws in Connecticut and Missouri Suicide 

Rates.” Preventive Medicine 79:43–49.

Dahlberg, Linda L., and Lloyd B. Potter. 2001. “Youth Violence: Developmental Pathways and 

Prevention Challenges.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(1):314.
17

David–Ferdon, Corinne, and Thomas R. Simon. 2014. Preventing Youth Violence: Opportunities for 

Action. Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of 

Violence Prevention.

Duhart, Detis T. 2000. Urban, Suburban, and Rural Victimization, 1993–98. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Egley, Arlen, Jr., Joseph E. Logan, and Dawn McDaniel. 2012. “Gang Homicides—Five U.S. 

Cities, 2003–08.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 61(3). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National 

Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

Farrell, Albert D., David B. Henry, Michael E. Schoeny, Amie Bettencourt, and Patrick H. Tolan. 

2010. “Normative Beliefs and Self-Efficacy for Nonviolence as Moderators of Peer, School, 

and Parental Risk Factors for Aggression in Early Adolescence.” Journal of Clinical Child & 

Adolescent Psychology 39(6): 80013.

(FBI) Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2014. National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems 

Operations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.fbi.gov/filerepository/2014-nics-ops-report-050115.pdf/view

Fergus, Stevenson, and Marc A. Zimmerman. 2005. “Adolescent Resilience: A Framework for 

Understanding Healthy Development in the Face of Risk.” Annual Review of Public Health

26:399419.

Ferguson, Christopher J., and D. Cricket Meehan. 2010. “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting: 

Antisocial Traits, Fighting, and Weapons Carrying in a Large Sample of Youth.” Psychiatric 

Quarterly 81(4):293302.

Finkelhor, David, Anne Shattuck, Heather Turner, and Sherry Hamby. 2014. “Trends in 

Children’s Exposure to Violence, 2003 to 2011.” JAMA Pediatrics 168(6):540–6.

Finkelhor, David, Heather Turner, Anne Shattuck, and Sherry Hamby. 2015a. “Prevalence of 

Childhood Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse: Results From the National Survey of 

Children’s Exposure to Violence.” JAMA Pediatrics 169(8):746–54.

Finkelhor, David, Heather Turner, Anne Shattuck, Sherry Hamby, and Kristen Kracke. 2015b. 

Children’s Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse: An Update. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP.

Fleegler, Eric W., Lois K. Lee, Michael C. Monuteaux, David Hemenway, and Rebekah Mannix. 

2013. “Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States.” JAMA 

Internal Medicine 173(9):73240.

Fowler, Katherine A., Linda L. Dahlberg, Tadesse Haileyesus, and Joseph L. Annest. 2015. 

“Firearm Injuries in the United States.” Preventive Medicine 79:5–14.

Futures Without Violence. 2016. Defining Child Traumatic Stress. San Francisco, Calif.: Futures 

Without Violence. https://changingmindsnow.org/science/defining-child-traumatic-stress

Gerstenblith, Stephanie. 2015. NIJ’s Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. Paper presented at the 

American Society of Criminology 71st Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

Grossman, David C., Helen A. Stafford, Thomas D. Koepsell, Ryan Hill, Kyla D. Retzer, and 

Ward Jones. 2012. “Improving Firearm Storage in Alaska Native Villages: A Randomized 

Trial of Household Gun Cabinets.” American Journal of Public Health 102(S2):S291–97.
18

Hawkins, J. David, Todd I. Herrenkohl, David P. Farrington, Devon Brewer, Richard F. 

Catalano, Tracy W. Harachi, and Lynn Cothern. 2000. “Predictors of Youth Violence.” 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, OJJDP.

Hemenway, David, and Daniel W. Webster. 2015. “Increasing Knowledge for the Prevention of 

Firearm Violence.” Preventive Medicine 79:3–4.

Henrich, Christopher C., Kathryn A. Brookmeyer, and Golan Shahar. 2005. “Weapon Violence 

in Adolescence: Parent and School Connectedness as Protective Factors.” Journal of 

Adolescent Health 37(4):306–12.

Hepburn, Lisa, Deborah Azrael, Matthew Miller, and David Hemenway. 2006. “The Effect of 

Child Access Prevention Laws on Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities, 1979–

2000.” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 61(2):423–28.

Herrenkohl, Todd I., Sheryl A. Hemphill, W. Alex Mason, John W. Toumbourou, and Richard F. 

Catalano. 2012. “Predictors and Responses to the Growth in Physical Violence During 

Adolescence: A Comparison of Students in Washington State and Victoria, Australia.” 

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 82(1):41–49.

Herrenkohl, Todd I., Eugene Maguin, Karl G. Hill, J. David Hawkins, Robert D. Abbott, and 

Richard F. Catalano. 2000. “Developmental Risk Factors for Youth Violence.” Journal of 

Adolescent Health 26(3):17686.

IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2013a. Contagion of Violence: 

Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

IOM and NRC. 2013b. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. 

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Johnson, Renee M., Catherine Barber, Deborah Azrael, David E. Clark, and David Hemenway. 

2010. “Who Are the Owners of Firearms Used in Adolescent Suicides?” Suicide and LifeThreatening Behavior 40(6):609–11.

Jolliffe, Darrick, David P. Farrington, Rolf Loeber, and Dustin Pardini. 2016. “Protective Factors 

for Violence: Results From the Pittsburgh Youth Study.” Journal of Criminal Justice 45:3240.

Jones, Michael A., and Barry Krisberg. 1994. Images and Reality: Juvenile Crime, Youth Violence,

and Public Policy. San Francisco, Calif.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Juby, Heather, and David P. Farrington. 2001. “Disentangling the Link Between Disrupted 

Families and Delinquency Sociodemography, Ethnicity, and Risk Behaviours.” British 

Journal of Criminology 41(1):2240.

Kann, Laura, Tim McManus, William A. Harris, Shari L. Shanklin, Katherine H. Flint, Joseph 

Hawkins, Barbara Queen, Richard Lowry, Emily O’Malley Olsen, David Chyen, Lisa 

Whittle, Jemekia Thornton, Connie Lim, Yoshimi Yamakawa, Nancy Brener, and Stephanie 

Zaza. 2016. “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2015.” Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report 62(30). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

Kegler, Scott R., and James A. Mercy. August 2013. “Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major 

Metropolitan Areas—United States, 2006–07 and 2009–10.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 
19

Report 62(30). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 

Division of Violence Prevention.

Kieselbach, Berit, and Alexander Butchart. 2014. Preventing Youth Violence: An Overview of the 

Evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs 

and Crime, and United Nations Development Program.

Kochanek, Kenneth D., Sherry L. Murphy, Jiaquan Xu, and Betzaida Tejada–Vera. 2016. 

“Deaths: Final Data for 2014.” National Vital Statistics Reports 65(4). Hyattsville, Md.: CDC, 

National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System. 

Kodjo, Cheryl M., Peggy Auinger, and Sheryl A. Ryan. 2003. “Demographic, Intrinsic, and 

Extrinsic Factors Associated With Weapon Carrying at School.” Archives of Pediatrics and 

Adolescent Medicine 157(1):96103.

Listenbee, Robert L., Joe Toerre, Rev. Gregory Boyle, Sharon W. Cooper, Sarah Deer, Deanne 

Tilton Durfree, Thea James, Alicia Lieberman, Robert Macy, Steven Marans, Jim McDonnell, 

Georgina Mendoz, and Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. 2012. Report of the Attorney General’s 

National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Lizotte, Alan J., Marvin D. Krohn, James C. Howell, Kimberly Tobin, and Gregory J. Howard. 

2000. “Factors Influencing Gun Carrying Among Young Urban Males Over the Adolescent–

Young Adult Life Course.” Criminology 38(3):811–34.

Lizotte, Alan J., James M. Tesoriero, Terence P. Thornberry, and Marvin D. Krohn. 1994. 

“Patterns of Adolescent Firearms Ownership and Use.” Justice Quarterly 11(1):51–74.

Logan–Greene, Patricia, Paula Nurius, Jerald Herting, Carole Hooven, Elaine Walsh, and Elaine 

Thompson. 2011. “Multidomain Risk and Protective Factor Predictors of Violence Behavior 

Among At-Risk Youth.” Journal of Youth Studies 14(4):413–29.

Lösel, Friedrich, and David P. Farrington. 2012. “Direct Protective and Buffering Protective 

Factors in the Development of Youth Violence.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 

43(2S1):S8–23.

Luca, Michael, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin. 2016. The Impact of Mass Shootings 

on Gun Policy. Working Paper 16–126. Boston, Mass.: Harvard University, Harvard Business 

School.

Ludwig, Jens, and Phillip J. Cook. 2000. “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With 

Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.” JAMA 284(5):58591.

Luthar, Suniya S., and Adam Goldstein. 2004. “Children’s Exposure to Community Violence: 

Implications for Understanding Risk and Resilience.” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent 

Psychology 33(3):499–505.

Makarios, Matthew D., and Travis C. Pratt. 2012. “The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs 

That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis.” Crime & Delinquency

58(2):222–44.

Margolin, Gayla, and Elana B. Gordis. 2000. “The Effects of Family and Community Violence on 

Children.” Annual Review of Psychology 51(1):445–79.

Markovic, John. 2012. “Criminal Justice and Public Health Approaches to Violent Crime: 

Complementary Perspectives.” Geography and Public Safety 3(2):1–3.
20

Marvell, Thomas B. 2001. “The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession.” Journal of Law and 

Economics 44:691–713.

McGarrell, Edmund, Steven Chermak, Jeremy Wilson, and Nicholas Corsaro. 2006. “Reducing 

Homicide Through a ‘Lever-Pulling’ Strategy.” Justice Quarterly 23(2):214–31.

Mikton, Christopher R., Alexander Butchart, Linda L. Dahlberg, and Etienne G. Krug. 2016. 

“Global Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine

50(5):652–59.

Miller, Mathew, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway. 2002. “Firearm Availability and 

Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide Among 5- to 14-Year-Olds.” Journal of 

Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 52(2):267–75.

Mmari, Kristin N., Robert Wm. Blum, and Nicolette Teufel–Shone. 2010. “What Increases Risk

and Protection for Delinquent Behaviors Among American Indian Youth? Findings From

Three Tribal Communities.” Youth & Society 41(3):383–413.

(NIJ) National Institute of Justice. 2011. Firearms and Violence Topical Working Group Meeting

Summary 2011. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238490.pdf

NIJ. 2015. The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative: 2015 Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248381.pdf

(NRC) National Research Council. 2005. “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.” In Charles 

F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie (eds.). Committee to Improve Research 

Information and Data on Firearms. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

O’Donnell, Deborah A., Mary E. Schwab–Stone, and Adaline Z. Muyeed. 2002. 

“Multidimensional Resilience in Urban Children Exposed to Community Violence.” Child 

Development 73:126582.

(OJJDP) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1996. Reducing Youth Gun 

Violence: An Overview of Programs and Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/redyouth.pdf

OJJDP. 2014. Youth Violence Prevention Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/youth-violenceprevention.html#sharedframework_jump

OJJDP. 2016a. Statistical Briefing Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/

OJJDP. 2016b. National Youth Violence Prevention Update: 2010–16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

http://www.yvpnews.com/yvpupdate.pdf

Oudekerk, Barbara A., and Rachel E. Morgan. 2016. Co-Offending Among Adolescents in Violent 

Victimizations, 2004–13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Parks, Sharyn E., Linda L. Johnson, Dawn D. McDaniel, and Matthew Gladden. 2014. 

“Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 
21

2010.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 63(1). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for 

Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

Patchin, Justin W., Beth M. Huebner, John D. McCluskey, Sean P. Varano, and Timothy S. 

Bynum. 2006. “Exposure to Community Violence and Childhood Delinquency.” Crime & 

Delinquency 52(2):307–32.

Payne, Susan R.T., and Delbert S. Elliott. 2011. “Safe2Tell®: An Anonymous, 24/7 Reporting 

System for Preventing School Violence.” New Directions for Youth Development 129:103–11.

Planty, Michael G., and Jennifer L. Truman. 2013. Firearm Violence, 1993–2011. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Powell, Elizabeth C., Karen M. Sheehan, and Katherine Kaufer Christoffel. 1996. “Firearm 

Violence Among Youth: Public Health Strategies for Prevention.” Annals of Emergency 

Medicine 28(2):204–12.

Puzzanchera, Charles, Greg Chamberlin, and Wei Kang. 2016. Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

Data, U.S. Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980–2014. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, FBI.

Quint, Janet. 2006. Meeting Five Critical Challenges of High School Reform: Lessons From Research on 

Three Reform Models. New York, N.Y.: MDRC.

Reingle, Jennifer M., Wesley G. Jennings, and Mildred M. Maldonado–Molina. 2012. “Risk and 

Protective Factors for Trajectories of Violent Delinquency Among a Nationally 

Representative Sample of Early Adolescents.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10(3):261–77. 

Resnick, Michael D., Marjorie Ireland, and Iris W. Borowsky. 2004. “Youth Violence 

Perpetration: What Protects? What Predicts? Findings From the National Longitudinal 

Study of Adolescent Health.” Journal of Adolescent Health 35(5):424.e1–e10.

Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway. 2011. “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional 

Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries.” Journal 

of Trauma 70(1):238–43.

Robers, Simone, Jijun Zhang, Jennifer L. Truman, and Thomas D. Snyder. 2012. Indicators of 

School Crime and Safety: 2011 (NCES 2012–002/ NCJ 236021). Washington, D.C.: National 

Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Rosario, Margaret, Suzanne Salzinger, Richard S. Feldman, and Daisy S. Ng–Mak. 2008. 

“Intervening Processes Between Youths’ Exposure to Community Violence and 

Internalizing Symptoms Over Time: The Roles of Social Support and Coping.” American 

Journal of Community Psychology 41(1–2):43–62.

Rudolph, Kara E., Elizabeth A. Stuart, Jon S. Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster. 2015. 

“Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides.” 

American Journal of Public Health 105(8):e49–54. 

Schwartz, Heather L., Rajeev N. Ramchand, Dionne Barnes–Proby, Sean Grant, Brian A. 

Jackson, Kristin J. Leuschner, Mauri Matsuda, Jessica Saunders. 2016. The Role of Technology 

in Improving K–12 School Safety. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.
22

Shetgiri, Rashmi, Denise Paquette Boots, Hua Lin, and Tina L. Cheng. 2016. “Predictors of 

Weapon-Related Behaviors Among African American, Latino, and White Youth.” Journal of 

Pediatrics 171:27782.

Skogan, Wesley G., Susan M. Hartnett, Natalie Bump, and Jill Dubois. 2008. Evaluation of 

Ceasefire—Chicago. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Slovak, Karen, and Mark Singer. 2001. “Gun Violence Exposure and Trauma Among Rural 

Youth.” Violence and Victims 16(4):389400.

Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries. 2016. “Mass Shootings in America.”

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries. 

https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america

Stoddard, Sarah A., Barbara J. McMorris, and Renee E. Sieving. 2011. “Do Social Connections 

and Hope Matter in Predicting Early Adolescent Violence?” American Journal of Community 

Psychology 48(3–4):24756.

Stoddard, Sarah A., Lauren Whiteside, Marc A. Zimmerman, Rebecca M. Cunningham, Stephen 

T. Chermack, and Maureen A. Walton. 2013. “The Relationship Between Cumulative Risk 

and Promotive Factors and Violent Behavior Among Urban Adolescents.” American Journal 

of Community Psychology 51(1–2):5765.

Sullivan, Christopher J. 2006. “Early Adolescent Delinquency: Assessing the Role of Childhood 

Problems, Family Environment, and Peer Pressure.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 

4:291313. 

Teplin, Linda A., Gary M. McClelland, Karen M. Abram, Darinka Mileusnic–Polchan, Nichole 

D. Olson, and Anna J. Harrison. 2015. Violent Death in Delinquent Youth After Detention. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP.

Thomas, Anita Jones, Devin Carey, Kia–Rai Prewitt, Edna Romero, Maryse Richards, and 

Barbara Velsor–Friedrich. 2012. “African American Youth and Exposure to Community 

Violence: Supporting Change From the Inside.” Journal for Social Action in Counseling and 

Psychology 4(1):54–68.

Truman, Jennifer L., and Lynn Langton. 2015. Criminal Victimization, 2014. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Vanderbilt–Adriance, Ella, and Daniel S. Shaw. 2008. “Protective Factors and the Development 

of Resilience in the Context of Neighborhood Disadvantage.” Journal of Abnormal Child 

Psychology 36(6):887–901.

Webster, Daniel W. 2015. “Commentary: Evidence to Guide Gun Violence Prevention in 

America.” Annual Review of Public Health 36:14.

Webster Daniel W., Cassandra K. Crifasi, and Jon S. Vernick. 2014. “Effects of the Repeal of 

Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides.” Journal of Urban Health

91:293–302. 

Webster, Daniel W., and Marc Starnes. 2000. “Reexamining the Association Between Child 

Access Prevention Gun Laws and Unintentional Shooting Deaths of Children.” Pediatrics

106(6):1466–69.
23

Webster, Daniel W., and Jon S. Vernick. 2013. Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy 

With Evidence and Analysis. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, April M. Zeoli, and Jennifer A. Manganello. 2004. 

“Association Between Youth-Focused Firearm Laws and Youth Suicides.” JAMA

292:594601.

Webster, Daniel W., and Garen J. Wintemute. 2015. “Effects of Policies Designed to Keep 

Firearms From High-Risk Individuals.” Annual Review of Public Health 36:2137.

Weinberger, Steven E., David B. Hoyt, Hal C. Lawrence, Saul Levin, Douglas E. Henley, Errol R. 

Alden, Dean Wilkerson, Georges C. Benjamin, and William C. Hubbard. 2015. “FirearmRelated Injury and Death in the United States: A Call to Action From Eight Health 

Professional Organizations and the American Bar Association.” Annals of Internal 

Medicine 162(7):513–16.

Weiner, Janet, Douglas J. Wiebe, Therese S. Richmond, Kristen Beam, Alan L. Berman, Charles 

C. Branas, Rose A. Cheney, Tamera Coyne–Beasley, John Firman, Martin Fishbein, Stephen 

Hargarten, David Hemenway, Robert Jeffcoat, David M. Kennedy, Christopher S. Koper, 

Jean Lemaire, Matthew Miller, Jeffrey A. Roth, C. William Schwab, Robert Spitzer, Stephen 

Teret, Jon S. Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster. 2007. “Reducing Firearm Violence: A Research 

Agenda.” Injury Prevention 13:80–84.

White, Nicole, and Janet L. Lauritsen. 2012. Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994–2010. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Williamson, Ariel A., Nancy G. Guerra, and W. Douglas Tynan. 2014. “The Role of Health and 

Mental Health Care Providers in Gun Violence Prevention.” Clinical Practice in Pediatric 

Psychology 2(1):88.

Wintemute, Garen J. 2015. “The Epidemiology of Firearm Violence in the Twenty-First Century 

United States.” Annual Review of Public Health 36:519.

Wright, Darlene R., and Kevin M. Fitzpatrick. 2006. “Violence and Minority Youth: The Effects 

of Risk and Asset Factors on Fighting Among African American Children and Adolescents.” 

Adolescence 41:25162. 

Youngblade, Lise M., Christina Theokas, John E. Schulenberg, Laura Curry, I–Chan Huang, and 

Maureen Novak. 2007. “Risk and Promotive Factors in Families, Schools, and Communities: 

A Contextual Model of Positive Youth Development in Adolescence.” Pediatrics

119(1):S4753.

Zhang, Anlan, Lauren Musu–Gillette, and Barbara A. Oudekerk. 2016. Indicators of School Crime 

and Safety: 2015. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs; and National Center for Education Statistics.

Zimmerman, Gregory M., and Chad Posick. 2016. “Risk Factors for and Behavioral 

Consequences of Direct Versus Indirect Exposure to Violence.” American Journal of Public 

Health 106(1):17888.
24

Last Updated: December 2016

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2016. “Gun Violence and Youth.” Literature 

Review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/gun-violence-and-youth.pdf.

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under contract no. 2013–JF–FX–K002.