School Handgun Carrying Among Youth Growing Up in Rural Communities

Patterns in pro-gun beliefs and weapon carrying behaviors in rural White adolescent

Weapon carrying among White rural populations is understudied although evidence suggests that rural White boys have high rates of carriage. This study delineated patterns of weapon use and pro-gun beliefs using a latent class analysis on a sample of 32,916 White rural adolescents. Five groups were identified (i.e., Low Gun Risk, Naïve, Social Contagion, Independent, Unsupervised) using pro-gun beliefs, peer risk factors, and weapon carrying items. Multinomial logistic regression analyses revealed that identifying as male, age, housing instability, and victimization consistently differentiated group membership between different classes. These results suggest that rural White adolescents vary in their belief systems about guns and weapon carrying behavior and that this heterogeneity can be differentiated by lived experiences of these adolescents.

The association of alcohol use and heavy drinking with subsequent handgun carrying among youth from rural areas

PURPOSE

Alcohol use and handgun carrying are more prevalent among youth in rural than urban areas and their association may be stronger among rural adolescents. Alcohol use may be modifiable with implications for reducing handgun carrying and firearm-related harm. We examined the association between lagged alcohol use and subsequent handgun carrying in rural areas and examined variation in the association by developmental stages, hypothesizing that it would be stronger among adolescents than youth adults.

METHODS

We used a longitudinal sample of 2,002 adolescents from ages 12 to 26 growing up in 12 rural communities in 7 states with surveys collected from 2004 to 2019. We estimated the association of lagged past-month alcohol use on handgun carrying in the subsequent 12 months using population-average generalized estimating equations with logistic regression on multiply imputed data.

FINDINGS

During adolescence (ages 12-18), those who drank heavily had 1.43 times the odds (95% CI = [1.01, 2.03]) of subsequent handgun carrying compared to those who did not drink alcohol, and those who consumed alcohol but did not drink heavily had 1.30 times the odds of subsequent handgun carrying compared to those who did not drink (95% CI = [0.98, 1.71]). During young adulthood (ages 19-26), associations of alcohol use (OR = 1.28; 95% CI = [0.94, 1.63]) and heavy drinking (OR = 1.38; 95% CI = [1.08, 1.68]) were similar to adolescence.

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol use and subsequent handgun carrying were positively associated during adolescence and young adulthood among individuals who grew up in rural areas, similar to findings in urban areas. Reducing alcohol use may be an important strategy to prevent handgun carrying and firearm-related harm among young people in rural areas.

Effect of the Communities That Care Prevention System on Adolescent Handgun Carrying: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

There is little information on upstream community-based interventions that reduce the prevalence of handgun carrying among adolescents, especially those growing up in rural areas.

Objective

To test whether Communities That Care (CTC), a community-based prevention system focusing on risk and protective factors for behavioral problems early in life, reduces handgun carrying prevalence among adolescents growing up in rural areas.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Community-randomized trial of 24 small towns in 7 states assigned randomly to the CTC or control group with outcomes assessed from 2003 to 2011. Participants were youths attending public schools in grade 5 who received consent from their parents to participate (77% of the eligible population) and were repeatedly surveyed through grade 12 with 92% retention. Analyses were conducted from June to November 2022.

Interventions

A coalition of community stakeholders received training and technical assistance to install CTC, used local epidemiologic data to identify elevated risk factors and low protective factors for adolescent behavioral problems, and implemented tested preventive interventions for youth, their families, and schools.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Handgun carrying (never vs at least once) operationalized in 2 ways: (1) prevalence of past-year handgun carrying, and (2) cumulative prevalence of handgun carrying from grade 6 through grade 12.

Results

Overall, the 4407 study participants' mean (SD) age was 12 (.4) years in both CTC (2405 participants) and control (2002 participants) communities in grade 6; about one-half of participants in each group were female (1220 [50.7 %] in the CTC group and 962 [48.1%] in the control group). From grade 6 through grade 12, 15.5% of participants in CTC communities and 20.7% of those in control communities reported carrying a handgun at least once. Youths in CTC communities were significantly less likely to report handgun carrying at a given grade than those in control communities (odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82). The most pronounced effects were observed in grade 7 (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-0.99), grade 8 (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.74), and grade 9 (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91). Cumulatively from grade 6 through grade 12, youths in CTC communities were significantly less likely to report handgun carrying at least once than those in control communities (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.84). Overall, CTC reduced the prevalence of past-year handgun carrying by 27% at a given grade and by 24% cumulatively through grade 12.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, CTC reduced the prevalence of adolescent handgun carrying in participating communities.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01088542.

Rural-Urban Variation in the Association of Adolescent Violence and Handgun Carrying in the United States, 2002-2019

Importance

Adolescent handgun carrying is associated with increased risk of firearm-related violence. Most evidence on adolescent handgun carrying is from urban areas, but these findings may not generalize to rural areas.

Objective

To examine differences in associations of adolescent interpersonal violence with handgun carrying across the rural-urban continuum.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used nationally representative data from the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years from 2002 to 2019 to estimate time-varying prevalence ratios (PRs) and prevalence differences (PDs) between interpersonal violence and handgun carrying across the rural-urban continuum. Analyses were conducted in April to July 2022.

Exposures

Any past-year serious fighting, group fighting, and attacking with intent to harm.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Any past-year handgun carrying. Associations were estimated within county rural-urban strata using the US Department of Agriculture's Rural-Urban Continuum Codes.

Results

In each year, the sample included a weighted count of almost 25 million adolescents, with 50.9% (95% CI, 50.2%-51.6%) males and 24.7% (95% CI, 23.8%-25.6%) Hispanic adolescents, 13.5% (95% CI, 12.8%-14.2%) non-Hispanic Black adolescents, and 51.8% (95% CI, 50.8%-52.8%) non-Hispanic White adolescents in 2019. More rural counties had less racial and ethnic diversity. For example, 81.1% (95% CI, 75.9%-85.4%) of adolescents were non-Hispanic White in the most rural counties vs 43.1% (95% CI, 41.7%-44.6%) of adolescents were non-Hispanic White in the most urban counties in 2019. Adolescent handgun carrying increased over time, with the largest increases in the most rural counties, where the prevalence of adolescent handgun carrying increased from 5.2% (95% CI, 3.8%-7.0%) in 2003 to 12.4% (95% CI, 8.9%-16.9%) in 2019. PRs for the association of violence and handgun carrying were greater in more urban counties. For example, in the most urban counties in 2019, adolescents involved in a group fight had 3.7 (95% CI, 2.9-4.8) times the prevalence of handgun carrying vs those not involved in a group fight; this PR was 3.1 (95% CI, 1.6-5.6) in the most rural counties. PDs were similar and, in some cases, larger in rural areas. For example, in the most urban counties in 2019, handgun carrying prevalence was 7.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.5%) higher among adolescents who were involved in a group fight compared with those who were not; this PD was 21.8% (95% CI, 8.2%-37.8%) in the most rural counties, where handgun carrying was more common.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study found that associations of interpersonal violence with handgun carrying were stronger in relative terms in urban areas than in rural areas; however, a higher percentage of rural than urban adolescents carried handguns, resulting in a greater absolute prevalence of handgun carrying associated with violence in rural areas than in urban areas. These findings suggest opportunities for preventing handgun carrying-related harms may differ between rural and urban communities.