Katz also compares lower-class gang behavior to middle class delinquents, and finds them quite different. Punks tend to come from middle-class homes, but tend to deny those roots. Punks may adopt lower-class dress and behavior, but deny the ties to neighborhood and territory that are at the basis of true lower-class gang banging. Fights over turf and invasion of turf take up a great deal of time and energy. The turf battles have, of course, been dramatically escalated with the turning of gangs toward organized crime in the form of crack dealing. The weapons are also more deadly, adding to the problem.

Lower- and middle-class gang behaviors are also distinct in that middle-class kids deny their higher status and adopt lower-class street behavior. (They move down). On the other hand, lower-class gangs consider themselves to be elites and often take names like the Knights, Kings. Etc. (they aspire to move up) Middle-class delinquent groups are also much more likely to include girls while the male posturing of lower class adolescent gangs virtually keeps females out, except as annexes to the male gang. (See Anne Campbell's books)

Ghetto gangs are actually one of the major reasons that such neighborhoods are so dangerous. Kids don't join them to protect themselves from the muggers and robbers in the neighborhood, but from rival gangs who create most of the problems. The environment does not generate the violence they engage in. The kids use violence because it demonstrates to everyone in the neighborhood their elite status. Without it their antics would appear like the fantasy war games that most children play. Gang behavior is childlike in a number of ways; they stick to their own neighborhoods just like children are told to do. For gangs this becomes a matter of some pride. Turf wars suggest childlike king-of-the-hill games. Being able to control the streets means the gang can collect tribute. Graffiti, like flags in children's war games mark territorial boundaries.

In actuality Katz takes up 3 chapters with this issue. He attempts to explain persistence in robbery (stick-up) as a learned behavior. The form of learning theory Katz would subscribe to is not classical conditioning or even Bandura's or Akers' more sociological approach. Those that persist in robbery are making a choice to continue involvement in a form of behavior they have found to be both instrumentally and expressively useful in the past. Katz also tries to take into account demographic or environmental factors that limit choices but don't prescribe choosing a deviant lifestyle. In particular, he seeks to offer clues as to why robbery is an almost exclusively male crime, and why there are a disproportionate number of black robbers. In chapter 7, Katz specifically takes up the latter points.

The first question Katz raises is whether persistent robbers can be called professional criminals. Obviously they can not. Most of their robberies result in little money. They run anywhere from a one in 5 to one in 10 chance of being caught each time they commit the crime. They don't improve their technique or sophistication with age or experience.

Katz questions those theorists who simplistically equate robbery with extreme poverty and lack of opportunity to get money in any other way. He also discounts drug addiction models. There are other ways to get money illegitimately that have much lower risk of detection or physical injury than robbery (i.e. selling drugs, numbers running, burglary, etc.). It is true that most robbers also do other types of crime, often the entire above list. However, for some robbery holds a certain fascination that makes it difficult for them to drop it from their criminal repertoire. One man persisted even when bound to a wheelchair as a result of a police shooting. Many robbers have reported that there is something about the thrill of confrontation with a victim that motivates them to commit the crime.

Robbery and mugging are quite different types of crime, the former requiring more "skill" and guts. A mugger wants to grab the person's valuables (purse, wallet, etc,) quickly and run away, while the victim is still too stunned to respond. He may knock the person over or hit them, but this is largely to insure his momentary advantage.

Robbers must declare their intentions and bring their victim's progress to a halt. They must appear threatening (not like Woody Allen in the bank robbery scene of "Take the Money and Run") and quite serious in their request for your valuables. The victim can not be allowed to think they can simply walk or run away or that in a fight they might be able to defeat the robber or scare him away. The assailant must appear to he committed to the use of violence if necessary even if it means getting into a fight in which the robber may be injured. This is, according to Katz, the moral philosophy of the "hardman;" his commitment is that his will, once communicated to the victim, must prevail, regardless of practical calculations of personal danger to himself (or to the victim). Victims do frequently resist (24% of those who face a robber with a gun) and thus the robber's concern is justified (within his moral universe).

There are a number of demographic factors that many persistent robbers share. These include being unmarried with few family obligations, being unemployed either steadily or for long periods of time, the use of hard drugs (often in combination). Rather than causal factors to explain persistent robbery, Katz sees them as part of an overall pattern of acceptance of a learned "transcendent" way of life (the person will succeed outside of the norms laid down by society). Other evidence to support this conclusion is marshaled by discussing attitudes towards sex, gambling, and money. Robbery is part of a larger commitment to a hedonistic life style that has a particular appeal to some. (Not only those living at the margins of our society, such as Mafia "wiseguy" Henry Hill.)

Katz sees the issues, of' chaos and control as being very important to understanding the career robber. Chaos is a force that threatens to overwhelm him at any moment. Things can go wrong during the robbery; an informant could always turn him in, etc.