A misrepresentation exists in the relationship between gang tattoos and crimes, although some tattoos may have historical associations with criminal subcultures. However, their meaning differs widely among cultures and periods. To clear cut question,what seems bad in one culture may be entirely neutral or downright good in another. Tattoos can also possess personal meanings, representing personal attachments or beliefs. Labelling people based on their tattoos is condemnable and discriminatory to say the least. Though some tattoos worked as minority combinations, associations go hand in hand. Tattoos are tattooed on skin for reasons of aesthetics; they should, therefore, not constitute a basis for judging an individual's character.

There are some scholars who differentiate between permanent tattoos and temporary tattoos (such as henna tattoos), where temporary tattoos which are temporary are considered more acceptable because they do not change God's creation permanently.

Some more contemporary arguments also emphasize the importance of intention and culture, but overall, traditional views continue to place greater emphasis on the prohibition of tattoos in Islam.

First of all, I fully agree with Vishesh Kumar Singh's comment.

Apart from that, those tattoos that do represent a form of transgression could be interpreted in different ways: the tattoo as a statement of intent (as you seem to suggest), which would include the gang identification ones; and the tattoo as a rebellion in itself (a standalone act and a form of standing up for an ideology), which wouldn't suggest further action.

In the second case, rebellious tattooing could lead to a disregard of norms (social, legal, religious, etc.), which could be a first approach to committing other violations of other rules, but I have not read anything to indicate that such a phenomenon is relevant or common at all.