EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS THAT MALES AND FEMALES HAVE TOWARDS

CONCEALED CARRY ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Division of Criminal Justice

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Criminal Justice

by

Stephen Goode

SPRING 2019

© 2019

Stephen Goode

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii

EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS THAT MALES AND FEMALES HAVE TOWARDS

CONCEALED CARRY ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS

A Thesis

by

Stephen Goode

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Dr. Ryan M. Getty

______, Second Reader Dr. Kim Schnurbush

______Date

iii

Student: Stephen Goode

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University

format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Yvette Farmer, Ph.D. Date

Division of Criminal Justice

iv

Abstract

of

EXPLORING THE PERCEPTIONS OF MALES AND FEMALES TOWARDS

CONCEALED CARRY ON A COLLEGE CAMPUSES

by

Stephen Goode

Often the perceptions students have towards concealed carry differ in a variety of cases especially males’ and females’ opinions (Doubleday, 2013; Gius, 2018; Jang,

Dierenfeldt, & Lee, 2014). Few studies have explored if one's gender had any significant effect on one’s perceptions of support for concealed carry policies on a college campus

Doubleday, 2013; Gius, 2018; Jang, Dierenfeldt, & Lee, 2014. This quantitative study examined a small sample of State University Sacramento criminal justice students and was conducted during the Spring 2019 semester. The results from the data did show a significant difference in variation between males’ and females’ perceptions towards concealed carry on a college campus. It is important to note that those significant variations should be examined and further analyzed.

______, Committee Chair Ryan M. Getty, Ph.D.

______Date

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Throughout my academic career, it was quite the learning experience where I both

expanded my academic understanding within the criminal justice field. I also made many

lifelong friends along the way. I must first acknowledge my parents who allowed me to

seek an education and further enhance my abilities to improve my quality of life.

Furthermore, it was a blessing to show my parents that, I had the talent and perhaps even the skill to accomplish this adventure in such a brief manner.

To all my friends, both academic and personal friends, you all always provided me with support and humor to make it. Many days I worked late into the night and often- missed hanging out with dear friends and loved ones (Kenny), but they all understood the reasons for my absences. Near the end of my studies, it soon became apparent to me that

finally I perhaps achieved my end goal of obtaining a higher education, which was no

easy task. I also hope to help those who helped me along my academic adventure and

perhaps help future colleagues or friends who seek higher education.

I extend my thanks to all the mentors and faculty along my educational journey,

who provided me with insight and assistance in helping me excel academically.

Throughout, the academic career I had the luck to encounter caring educators, who

genuinely wanted the best for their students. Each semester was always a blast, even

though there were hard times they were outweighed by the good. One teacher, in

particular, I would like to thank is Professor Christine Morse Fitch, who always provided

helpful insight and even encouraged me to seek higher education when I was a student of

hers.

vi

Another Professor, I would like to thank personally is Dr. Ryan M. Getty, who

also happens to be my thesis chair. Throughout my academic career, he always provided

me with valuable insight and guidance for my thesis’s development. Lastly, Professor

Getty was always a pleasure to have a fun academic conversation about a plethora of

topics.

Lastly, I would like to thank Ellice Ramm. She helped to provide me with more

in-depth knowledge about statistics. She also explained to me why researchers apply

specific methods and test when conducting research.

Overall, my academic career was an adventure, in which I hope to one day repay

the favor. Potentially, I hope to help future academics excel in their educational

experiences.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgments ...... vi

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

Chapter1

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 3

The Issue ...... 4

The Research ...... 5

Purpose of the Study ...... 5

Theory ...... 6

Limitations ...... 7

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9

Chronological Time Line of Gun Laws in the U.S...... 9

1900s-1960s...... 9

1970s-2000s...... 10

How America Regulates ...... 12

Recent History of Firearms in the U.S...... 13

Gun Control and Crime ...... 14

Media & Gun Crime ...... 16

Gun Levels vs. Levels of Crime ...... 17

Who Obtains Firearms and Why? ...... 19

Fear of Crime ...... 19

Proactive Firearms Enforcement ...... 20 viii

Stop, Question, & Frisk ...... 21

The Cost of Gun Violence ...... 22

Mass Shootings ...... 23

High-risk Populations with Guns ...... 24

The Effectiveness of Policies ...... 25

Concealed Carry ...... 28

Types of Concealed Carry ...... 28

Concealed Carry & Crime ...... 29

Campus Concealed Carry ...... 30

Theory ...... 31

Routine Activity Theory ...... 31

3. METHODOLOGY ...... 33

Study Design ...... 34

Generalities / Overview ...... 34

Instrument / Data Collection ...... 35

Sample ...... 39

Descriptive Information ...... 41

Variables ...... 42

Independent Variables ...... 42

Fear...... 42

Self...... 42

Race...... 43

Demographics...... 43

Environment...... 44 ix

Dependent Variables ...... 44

Reason for selecting criminal justice majors ...... 44

Reason for not sampling other populations ...... 45

Sample Limitations ...... 45

Protection of Human Subjects ...... 46

Conclusion ...... 47

4. ANALYSIS OF DATA & FINDINGS ...... 48

Descriptive Statistics ...... 49

Research Design Part II ...... 53

ANOVA by Gender ...... 53

ANOVAs by Race & Politics ...... 61

Conclusion ...... 65

5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 66

Summary ...... 66

Discussion ...... 68

Limitations ...... 70

Recommendations ...... 72

Appendix A. Carry-on Campus Survey ...... 74

References ...... 92

x

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Participant Age ...... 49

2. Political Background ...... 50

3. Gender ...... 50

4. Race ...... 51

5. Participant Majors ...... 52

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

1. Males vs. females response of knowledge regarding state law and carrying

concealed on campus. N=149...... 55

2. Males vs. females response if permitted to carry concealed, would you feel

safe knowing anyone with a concealed weapon permit could possess a weapon

while on campus ...... 56

3. Male vs. female response to what would encourage you to carry a handgun on

campus is legally permitted to?...... 57

4. Male vs. female responses to whether guns should be allowed on campus

because...... 60

5. Males vs. females perception to I would best describe myself as...... 61

6. Should anyone with a concealed weapon permit, should have the ability

to carry around a firearm (handgun for self-protection on their college campuses?

...... 62

7. Should anyone with a concealed weapon permit, should have the ability to

carry around a firearm (handgun) for self-protection on their college

campuses? ...... 63

8. Race differences towards the perception of firearms...... 64

9. Political differences towards the perception of firearms...... 65

xii

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech saw one of the deadliest mass shootings to occur on a college campus in the United States (Gius, 2018). The right to bear arms, one could say, is emulated within the American culture. Cook & Goss (2014) pointed out the age-old argument that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (p. 55). One could infer that concealed carry (CC) has recently gained attention throughout these turbulent times. This issue is politically divided where one side supports

CC or does not. When examining concealed carry laws and crime, Gius (2018), found that currently there is little research examining the links between campus carry laws and crime. One might suggest that with the Virginia Tech shooting if even one of the bystanders on campus had a legally possessed firearm with them on campus, there may have been fewer deaths (Gius, 2018).

As of 2017, 10 states have authorized legislation, which permits students, faculty, and staff to carry concealed firearms on college campuses (Gius, 2018). One group leading the way for concealed carry policies on college campuses is the group Students for Concealed Carry. This group has promoted and urged editorials and their local lawmakers to enact laws that would decriminalize and legalize the lawful carrying of a licensed concealed handgun on campuses. Battling perceptions, this movement has met resistance where, when some imagine guns on a college campus, they perceive irresponsible or risky behavior involving firearms on campuses (Wiseman, 2012).

2

Wiseman (2012), reported that the director of public relations from Students for

Concealed Carry concluded that his organization only seeks to promote individuals who

are lawfully able to be permitted to carry a concealed firearm, whether it be in a grocery

store or a college campus.

Before discussing concealed carry further, one must define the act of concealed

carry. Concealed carry (CC) is the act of carrying a weapon (handgun) in a manner

concealed from plain view (Barati, 2016). Gius (2018) proposed that when examining

concealed carry, one must take into account the laws and regulations regarding CC which

varies from state to state and has changed throughout the past 30 years. Regarding concealed carry, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the District of Columbia v. Hellner,

(2008) set forth the precedent that Americans do have a constitutional right to possess a firearm lawfully. This precedent primarily struck down the handgun ban in the District of

Columbia (Washington Post, 2012). Lastly, Gius (2018) mentioned that currently concealed carry is not regulated on the federal level; therefore, it is up to each state to legislate CC.

Researchers have estimated that in America, there are around 200 to 360 million known firearms in circulation (Cook & Goss, 2014). From those numbers, Cook & Goss

(2014) suggested that every American could own a gun, but the research indicates that about only 25% of Americans own a gun. Similarly McDougal, Shirk, Muggah, &

Patterson (2015) found, “One in four US citizens (26%) and two in five households

3

(38%) owned a firearm, nearly half of all individual gun owners (48%) possessed four or more firearms, and 20% of all individual gun owners held 65% of all firearms” (p. 298).

Statement of The Problem

There has been a public perception that crime is on the rise in America (Latzer,

2016). Because of the impression that crime is on the rise, many laws regarding firearms on campuses are crafted and introduced into law with little to no student perspective

(Doubleday, 2013). Contradictory to the previous statement, researchers have found that crime has been in decline since the late 1980s (Latzer, 2016; Krivo, 2014). Latzer (2016) offered an explanation for this trend that the baby-boomer generation increased the crime rate during the1960s and by the late 1980s, and many of those within the baby-boomer generation aged out of crime.

Even though crime is declining, survey research exploring students’ perceptions towards concealed carry on college campuses has shown that often students believe that permitting concealed firearms on college campuses will increase homicide and suicide rates on campuses (Gius, 2018). Students for Concealed Carry concluded that these opinions are due to a lack of knowledge about how often they encounter concealed weapons when they are not on campuses (Doubleday, 2013). One could summarize it is from this lack of information of the frequency students come into contact with concealed weapons potential drives negative or positive opinions. Regarding concealed carry on college campuses, Kurt Mueller, Director of Public Relations at Students for Concealed

4

Carry, proposed that through education about firearms, this could potentially ease students concerns about concealed guns on college campuses (Doubleday, 2013).

While research concludes that most violent crime is on a general decline, evidence gathered by Federal Bureau of Investigations does offer the conclusion that mass shootings have been on the rise since 2016 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018).

In fact, Cook & Goss (2014) proposed that lawfully armed individuals are the ones who can potentially stop unlawfully armed individuals.

The Issue

Concealed carry (CC) is a politically charged issue with opponents on both sides lobbying for either strict gun laws or more liberal gun laws (Gius, 2018). Regarding CC, researchers Kleck, Kovandzic, & Bellows (2016), found that existing firearms laws do not affect or hinder firearm ownership levels. Helsley & O’Sullivan (2001) concluded from prior researchers that a majority of the transactions supplying guns to criminals involved stolen guns (Cook, Molliconi, and Cole, 1995; Anonymous, 1986).

Furthermore, Kleck et al. (2016) found that gun control policies had no significant adverse impact on the level of violent crime. Researching guns and crime, Kleck (2015) found that when researchers do not account for confounding variables, their research produces data favorable to their hypothesis. According to Kleck (2015), to reduce potential research bias, researchers should examine multiple confounding variables. Thus, when researchers account for multiple variables, it could lend to greater generalizability and further build upon the prior literature. When concerning the issue of campus-

5

concealed carry, Thompson, Price, Dake, Teeple, Bassler, Khubchandani, & Stratton

(2013) reported that the majority of college students do not support concealed carry

policies on college campuses due to the perceptions that they do not feel safe on campus

knowing staff or students are armed.

The Research

Donohue (2003) theorized that inferring concealed carry reduces crime is complicated, because data varies from state to state, and there are no universal forms of

measurement in this field of research. Furthermore, researchers have proposed that

currently available data cannot support the hypothesis that gun control laws correlate with

a reduction in crime (Kleck et al., 2016). Lastly, research has put forth that gun laws can

have violence reducing or violence increasing effects making it difficult to infer causation

for either opinion (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006).

Purpose of the Study

Concealed carry policies on college campuses are a relatively new law because

most campus concealed carry (CC) laws did not exist before 2010 (Gius, 2018). Gius

(2018) proposed that most previous studies examining CC employed old data that may

have incorrectly reported the actual effects of CC on campus and its impact on crime.

This study intends to examine current perceptions college students have regarding

concealed carry policies on a college campus. Specifically, this research seeks to examine

perceptions held by college criminal justice students have, both male and female, towards

concealed carry on campus, and whether or not there are any significant differences

6

between the sexes. While shootings on a college campus are rare, universities have

enacted security policies to address these security concerns. For example, in 2017, only

ten states have permitted students, staff, and faculty to possess concealed firearms on

campus (Gius, 2018). Jang, Dierenfeldt, & Lee (2014) believed that campus concealed

carry (CC) perceptions are often based on speculation instead of empirical evidence, and

there is a lack of data examining if anxiety and fear lead students to support or not to

support CC policies on campus. Prior research examining students perceptions on (CC)

on campus found that students who are more prone to carry are white, males, politically

conservative, concerned about crime on campus, criminal justice students, and questioned

the ability of the police to protect them (Thompson et al., 2013).

Theory

Routine activity theory was developed to predict and comprehend why crime rates

changed in Post-World War II America (Reyns, 2013). Reyns (2013) credited its original authors, Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen (1979), as believing that crime occurs due to three factors: a suitable target, lack of guardianship, and a motivated offender.

Applying this theory to concealed carry, Wiseman (2012) reported upon a sexual assault case involving Amanda Carpenter, who was walking back to her car at night after taking an exam at the University of Nevada at Reno where she was attacked and raped by an assailant with a gun. From Amanda’s account, she believed that due to state law that prohibited her from lawfully possessing a firearm. Being restricted from legally carrying a concealed firearm made her defenseless in this situation (Wiseman, 2012). In this case,

7

Wiseman (2012) showed that this victim perceived that if she were armed, she could have

prevented this assault. On behalf of Amanda, Wiseman (2012) raised the question “How

does making Amanda defenseless protect her from violent crime?”

Applying Routine Activity Theory within this case, one might believe that

without a firearm, Amanda was a suitable target. Second, she lacked guardianship

whether it was traveling in pairs or being armed. Lastly, due to her offender likely

knowing his victims would be unarmed, he could be a motivated offender knowing she

lacked any guardianship or protection. This illustrates one of the three factors of Cohen

and Felson’s (1979) Routine Activity Theory.

Limitations

A potential limitation to this study is that California is a “may issue” state

regarding concealed carry (CC) permits and CC on campus is not legal in California

(Gius, 2018). A “may-issue” permit gives the state the ability to deny a permit to a

qualified individual (Lyons, 2017). In addition, the data gathered from a potential survey

given to students for this study would be difficult to generalize these findings to other populations in other colleges in different States or regions within the State due to laws regarding CC vary from county to state (Donohue, 2003). Another potential limitation this study faces is its generalizability because the sample size is 149 students within criminal justice courses during the Spring 2019 semester. The generalizability of this study is affected due to the actual size of the Sacramento State student population, which is much larger than the sample size. Due to selecting criminal justice students alone, the

8

study does hold the potential for bias. Prior research by Thompson et al. (2013) reported

that Criminal Justice students tend to hold favorable opinions towards concealed carry

compared to other majors.

Additionally, in an attempt to get as many Criminal Justice students to participate

as possible, the classrooms and students were not chosen at random. The sampling was a

purposive and convenience sampling strategy. The students who did decide to complete

the survey likely did so through self-selection (interest in the subject since no

“incentives” were given) thereby further decreasing reliability across other Criminal

Justice students en mass. The last two shortcomings in methodology, theoretically limited generalizability. Because of the lack of randomization, self-selection bias, and limiting the sample to Criminal Justice students, it is prudent to limit to findings to those Criminal

Justice students who took the survey. A more thorough discussion of methodological limitations will be discussed in Chapter 5.

9

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Chronological Time Line of Gun Laws in the U.S.

1900s-1960s. Guns have been a part of American society back to the founding of

the U.S. in 1776. One could perceive the issue that looms around firearms as the

interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and if the right to bear arms is subject to limitations or not. The Supreme Court decision The District of Columbia v. Hellner, (2008) established the precedent that Americans do have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes (Kelderman & Lipka, 2008). This ruling struck down the earlier handgun ban in the District of Colombia (History of gun-control legislation, 2012). The turbulent times of prohibition ushered in the era of the “Tommy Gun.” During this time, many infamous

American-gangsters like Al Capone built a criminal empire during prohibition (Petranek,

2012). It could be theorized that the creation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 was a response to the rise in crime during the prohibition era (Petranek, 2012). This Act was one of the first significant forms of gun-control legislation on the federal level in the

United States (Mantel, 2013). Precisely, this law placed a 200 dollar tax on the sale or manufacture of a machine gun or sawed-off , as well as created a national registry to record the transactions of these types of weapons (History of gun-control legislation,

2012). The next primary form of gun legislation occurred in 1938, under the Roosevelt

Administration (Leff & Leff, 1981). This provision of The National Firearms Act of 1938 required the licensing of interstate gun dealers, as well recording sales, and finally, it

10

prohibited the purchase of a firearm to an individual under indictment or convicted of

crimes of violence (History of gun-control legislation, 2012).

During the turbulent times of the 1960s, influential individuals of that time, like

Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, and President John F. Kennedy, were

assassinated, spurring the Johnson Administration to take action on gun control

(DeFrances & Smith, 1994). DeFrances & Smith (1994) theorized that this led to the

creation of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 further prohibited convicted mentally ill, drug users,

and felons from purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearms dealers (Batey,

1986). This legislation also raised the age to buy a handgun from 18 to 21 from a federally authorized firearms dealer and expanded the requirements for gun dealers to maintain detailed records of firearm sales (History of gun-control legislation, 2012).

1970s-2000s. In 1986, many complaints came forth by gun rights groups and civilians stating that the federal government had been abusing its power enforcing gun laws due to prior legislation from the 1960s that was perceived as overreaching states’ rights (Vizzard, 2014). In response, this led to the passage of The Firearm Owners

Protection Act of 1986. This Act only permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms (ATF) to inspect gun dealers once a year, with an exception to examine again if violations occur (History of gun-control legislation, 2012). An amendment added to this legislation restricted civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19,

1986, but weapons made or registered before that date were not affected (Littman, 2011).

11

According to Jacobs & Potter (1995), they noted that under this legislation, The Firearm

Owners Protection Act of 1986 prohibited the creation of a national firearms registry for

gun owners.

DeFrances & Smith (1994), noted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of

1993, mandated background checks to prevent prohibited individuals from purchasing

firearms from licensed firearms dealers. Initially, these checks would have occurred

through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), maintained by

the FBI (Mantel, 2013). Previous legislation restricted the federal government from

creating a national registry of gun owners (Jacobs & Potter, 1995). Furthermore, this

legislation did not require private sales of firearms to go through a background check

under federal law, but individual states have enacted laws requiring private sales to go

through a background check (Mantel, 2013). Under the Clinton administration, The

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 established a 10-year federal

ban on the manufacturing of new semi-automatic weapons, classified as an . This legislation gained support following the death of an officer who died during an altercation with a suspect using an AK-47 variant weapon, which pierced the officer ’s

shield and killed him (Worsnop, 1994).

Specifically, this legislation targeted 19 specific weapons that had certain features of an assault . These weapons, such as the AR-15, versions of the AK-47, TEC-9,

Mac 10, and the Uzi were banned (Worsnop, 1994). This legislation also banned large- capacity magazines, limiting them to no more than ten rounds. In 2003, the Tiahrt

12

Amendment prohibited law enforcement from publicly releasing data that showed where

or how criminals obtained firearms (Schwartz, 2007).

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 commonly known

as the “Assault Weapons Ban” expired in 2004 (Mantel, 2013). The Bush administration

passed the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 that granted firearms manufacturers’

immunity from civil lawsuits regarding their products (Mantel, 2013). Recently, gun

control has been going in the opposite direction. For example, the Supreme Court

decision in The District of Columbia v. Hellner (2008), established the precedent that

Americans do have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes (Samuels, 2015).

This ruling ultimately struck down the handgun ban in the District of Columbia (History of gun-control legislation, 2012). The dissent in this ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Americans do possess the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home (Winkler, 2009).

How America Regulates Firearms

Throughout the 1900s to early 2000s, most legislation about firearms moved

towards the direction of stricter laws or regulations (Mantel, 2013). That all changed in

the Supreme Court decision of The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that set forth the

precedent that the Second Amendment protects the right for an individual to possess a

firearm for self-defense (Cook & Goss, 2014). When attempting to enforce gun control

laws, researchers Cook & Goss (2014) and Schwartz (2007) proposed pro-gun legislation

limiting U.S. governmental organizations’ abilities to enforce firearms regulations. The

13

Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, limited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms (ATF) to inspect gun dealers once a year, with the exception for follow-up inspections if violations were noted (History of gun-control legislation, 2012).

This legislation prohibited the creation of a national firearms registry for gun owners, though some argued the law limited the ATF’s ability to use data in the investigations of gun trafficking and other crimes (Mantel, 2013). Research presented by

Cook & Goss (2014) illuminated legislation enacted by Congress that barred the ATF

from saving records of completed background checks, as well as banning them from

computerizing these records. Consequently, one could theorize that proponents for or

against gun control, have argued that gun control is effective or ineffective in reducing

crime. Current existing data regarding crime and firearms still lacks in quantity to draw

the definite conclusion if the level of guns correlates with an increase in crime (Palazzolo

& Bialik, 2012).

Recent History of Firearms in the U.S.

Cook and Goss (2014) estimated that in just the past three decades, over one

million Americans have died from gunshot wounds, ranging from suicides, accidents, and homicides. In addition, Cook and Goss (2014) reported that deaths from firearms in the

U.S. in the past three decades is higher than all combat deaths the U.S. encountered in all

their wars. Estimates by various researchers in America have put around 200 to 360

million known firearms in circulation with those numbers, and it is believed that every

American could own a gun, but research has shown that only about 25% of adults own a

14

firearm (Cook & Goss, 2014; Wright, 1995). McDougal, Shirk, Muggah, & Patterson

(2015) found that only about one in four Americans or two out of five households possessed a firearm in the home. They also reported that roughly half (48%) of individual gun owners possessed four or more firearms. In addition, within that a small group of individual gun owners, 20% of those possessed roughly 68% of known firearms in circulation (McDougal et al., 2015). Koper and Mayo-Wilson (2006) examined national

data of those incarcerated for gun offenses and found that over 80% of those who

possessed a firearm illegally before a custodial arrest was currently on parole or probation when they were apprehended for a gun-related crime.

Gun Control and Crime

When examining gun control and crime Kleck et al. (2016) analyzed the

correlation between gun control and the reduction of violent crime. From their research,

they reported that in 2014 the FBI found that 67.9% of homicides, 40.3% of robberies,

and 22.5% of aggravated assaults on police records indicated the perpetrators used a

firearm in the commission of those crimes. Contradictory to prior research, others within

the research community have proposed that research involving guns and criminal

offenses do not possess significant results to draw any meaningful conclusions (Kleck et

al. ; Palazzolo & Bialik, 2012) theorized that the purpose of gun control was to limit the

availability of firearms to specific segments of the population who are more prone to

using a firearm in the act of violence. From the position of hindering gun access to the

public, Wright (1995) theorized when examining gun control and violent crime, gun

15

control measures can reduce a citizen’s ability to defend themselves with a firearm, thereby decreasing the deterrence an offender has to consider. While some researchers have agreed that research has shown that certain forms of intervention can reduce violent crime, there is no consensus on what measures are adequate or perception that any evidence existed to support this claim (Palazzolo & Bialik, 2012; Worsnop, 1994). When examining prior research on the impact that gun control has had on violent crime, the typical findings concluded that there is no significant positive or negative correlation between violent crime and gun control laws (Kleck et al., 2016).

Kleck et al. (2016) theorized that existing laws concerning firearm regulations had no measurable effect on gun ownership levels. In support of the prior claim, Palazzolo &

Bialik (2012) reported that the National Research Council as well concluded that no gun law has proven effective in reducing civilian gun ownership, reducing or increasing violent crime, or hindering prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms. Kleck (1996) reported in a review of national surveys that more Americans supported various forms of moderate gun control legislation. Most perceived that these measures or laws would not restrict criminals from obtaining guns or reduce violent crime (Kleck, 1996). When looking at gun research, the standard method for researching gun control and crime is the

“interrupted time-series design” (ITSD) (Kleck, 1996). Under this method of study, an interrupted time-series designs typically looks at the monthly violence rates in a given jurisdiction and then looks for any downshift in the frequency of violent crime around the time a new gun control measure has been proposed or implemented (Kleck et al., 2016).

16

Essentially an “interrupted time-series design” is a method where researchers measure

and repeatedly measure single or multiple subjects at a frequent interval throughout a

given study (Kleck et al., 2016).

Media & Gun Crime

Research presented by Rios and Ferguson (2019) showed that there was virtually no correlation between the amount of news coverage of crime and crime itself. Collins,

Farrell, Mckee, Martin, & Monk-Turner (2011) observed many studies that showed how the media reports on certain crimes disproportionably. For example, the authors found that violent crime frequencies are over-reported, while property crimes are ignored. The authors Kleck et al. (2016) proposed that media coverage of crime does affect the passage of gun laws, but does not affect crime rates. Outside research conducted by both (Collins et al., 2011; Kleck et al., 2016) sustained that the media serves a political purpose to portray crime in a particular light to guide public support or hinder public support to assist the state in guiding and creating social issues or agendas.

Stroebe (2016) theorized that available research has failed to support the claim that gun control correlates with a reduction in violent crime. The fact of the matter is that research has shown that violent crime has been at a historic low, while mass shootings have received much attention from the media the data indicate that these events are not on the rise but are consistent historically (Cook & Goss, 2014; Domenech, 2013). Dube,

Dube, & Garcãa-Ponce (2013) recommended from the variables they examined that current and past gun laws did not adequately limit prohibited individuals from obtaining a

17

firearm. Kleck et al. (2016) argued that gun laws could have both violence-reducing and violence-increasing effects making it difficult to prove causation indefinitely.

Gun Levels vs. Levels of Crime

Most research evaluating gun ownership is conducted through surveys, and often the actual number of gun ownership is underreported, this can cause errors in findings in firearms research (Kleck, 2015). Data regarding firearms as well vary in depth, and often research within this field is limited due to lack of funding and a lack of concepts that are agreed upon throughout the academic community (Palazzolo & Bialik, 2012). Kleck et al.

(2016) theorized that the availability of firearms does not correlate with more crime.

When reducing the amount of guns to reduce violent gun crimes, research has shown that

gun laws aimed at reducing gun ownership did not connect with a reduction in violent

crime (Kleck et al., 2016). Kleck & Patterson (1993) proposed that most legislation

regarding gun restrictions showed no significant adverse effect on the levels of violence,

though some studies have shown the exact opposite.

Reviewing a study out of Australia examining the level of legal gun ownership

and crime, Mcphedran (2013) concluded that reducing legal gun ownership levels is not a

prerequisite for decreasing violent crime. A reduction in violent crime can result from an increase in legal ownership of firearms as proposed by (Mcphedran, 2013). Kleck (2015) reported that research shows no significant correlation between gun prevalence and

crimes ranging from homicide, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Research has only

18

found that the level of guns only affected the frequency of the crimes committed with a firearm (Kleck, 2015).

When examining the correlation of the prevalence of guns and levels of violent crime, one must not jump to any conclusions without considering all potential variables or factors (Kleck, 2015). Kleck (2015) noted that if a geographic area is associated with a culture that embraces violent behavior, but gun ownership was also prevalent there, the sub-culture in that location would be a confounding variable that would need to be taken into account when proposing that high gun ownership rates cause high crime rates. As noted in Mcneeley & Yuan (2017) a prime example of this phenomenon can be seen through Elijah Anderson’s “Code of the Streets” (1999). The authors proposed that those within deprived socioeconomic areas might engage in a deviant sub-culture of violence and aggression in the attempts to reduce their chances of being a victim themselves.

Paradoxically, research shows that those who engage in the “Code of the Streets” are more than likely to become victims themselves; furthermore, research suggests that one’s fear of crime does not always correlate with their actual risk of victimization (Mcneeley

& Yuan, 2017).

Kates & Mauser (2007) found that recent gun research has found no significant positive correlation between violence rates and gun levels. Following up on prior research, Kleck (2015) proposed when researchers do not account for confounding variables, their results often produce data that supports the hypothesis that crime rises when there are more guns, but when researchers examine confounding variables, they

19

often do not find supporting data for the previously stated hypothesis. Kleck (2015)

offered that proponents for gun control often employed a macro-level study that would

show a positive correlation between the number of guns and the level of crime. Kleck

(2015) concluded that these studies could give the perception that more guns can

correlate with an increase in violent crime. Furthermore, Kleck (2015) supported his

claim that failing to account gun prevalence as an endogenous variable can create a misleading correlation that more guns equal an increase in the frequency of homicides.

Who Obtains Firearms and Why?

Who obtains guns is a paramount variable to research when examining the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Palazzolo & Bialik (2012) inferred that

data involving firearms and crime are often too minuscule drawing any significant

conclusions or generalizations. Past studies have found that long-time gun owners are

typically white males in rural areas, middle-aged or older, grew up with guns, middle- class income, and predominately in the Midwest or Southern regions within the U.S.

(Wertz, Azrael, Hemenway, Sorenson, & Miller, 2018). Wertz et al. (2018) theorized that new gun owners are more prone compared to long-time gun owners to own pistols and possess firearms for primarily self-protection rather than hunting or sport.

Fear of Crime

Kleck (2015) reported that the increase of fear of victimization does motivate gun acquisition, but a decrease in fear of being victimized does not prompt the disposal of gun ownership. Kleck & Patterson (1993) believed that a women’s fear of crime tends to lead

20

them more than males to acquire firearms for self-defense. Research has offered that when the crime rate increases, gun ownership increases as well (Kleck, 2015). When examining the statement that guns cause crime, Southwick (1997) argued that crime leads to gun acquisition. Prior research has recommended that people obtain firearms in response to crime rather than crime being the reason for gun acquisition (Southwick,

1997). Often the term gun control is the simple response to reduce the frequency of guns in public (Kleck et al., 2016). Proactive firearm interventions can function as a possible variable in reducing the incidence of crimes involving firearms.

Proactive Firearms Enforcement

Simplistically, gun control aims at reducing the availability of firearms to certain segments of the populous who are more prone to use a firearm in a violent act (Kleck et al., 2016). Current and past research has shown that enforcing laws that forbid the carrying of a concealed weapon without a permit has a deterrence effect on subsequent shootings and the illegal carrying of a firearm (Wyant, Taylor, Ralph, Ratcliffe, & Wood,

2010). Wyant et al. (2010) theorized under deterrence theory that an individual being previously caught illegally carrying a firearm would possibly reduce the future illegal carrying of a firearm. Counter to that statement, Wyant et al. (2010) believed that if an individual was able to go undetected or does not hear of others apprehended or punished, they may feel more emboldened to carry a firearm illegally.

Researchers examining proactive firearms interventions that directed patrols targeting illegal gun possession in high crime areas concluded that these interventions

21

reduce the frequency of firearms used within crime temporarily (Wells, Zhang, & Zhao,

2012). Wyant et al. (2010) found that when law enforcement proactively enforced firearm

laws regarding the illegal carrying of a firearm, fewer shootings did occur after a short

lag in time. Donohue (2003) highlighted that one must also take into account that other

criminal justice and social environment factors could have taken effect, which may have

caused a reduction in shootings.

Upon examining multiple police firearms interventions, Koper & Mayo-Wilson

(2006) focused on studies examining policies that targeted the illegally carrying of

firearms. They found that directed patrols targeting firearms did reduce the frequency of

gun crimes in high-crime areas, but these interventions varied in methods and practices

making their findings difficult to generalize (Koper & Mayo-Wilson, 2006). In addition,

Rosenfeld, Deckard, & Blackburn (2014) reported that proactive law enforcement tactics,

such as arrests, and occupied vehicle checks did reduce firearm assaults, but credited

other, less intrusive or coercive tactics could have been as effective in reducing different

types of crime.

Stop, Question, & Frisk

Rosenfeld & Fornango (2017) illuminated one of the most controversial firearms enforcement policies, ’s Stop, Question, and Frisk. This policy raised the question of its constitutionality, and its encroachment on people’s rights and liberties,

especially those within minority communities that this policy significantly affected

(Saunders, Kelly, Cohen, & Guarino, 2016). Rosenfeld & Fornango (2017) concluded

22

that the current research found that New York’s “Stop, Question, and Frisk” policy did

reduce the frequency of crime in locations designated as police hot spot areas for a

limited amount of time. Rosenfeld & Fornango (2017) argued that these findings

depended on the type of analysis used, and that without significant reduction of crime to

nearby areas, the reduction of crime was more centralized in the enforced area, and while

the research did show a decrease in robberies and burglaries its effects were not

permanent.

The Cost of Gun Violence

It is estimated that the social cost of gun violence amounts to about 10-100 billion

dollars yearly (Cook, Ludwig, Venkatesh, & Braga, 2007). Domenech (2013) reported

that current studies showed that crime has been in decline since the early 1990s. For

example, (non-fatal) robbery & assault rates recorded by law enforcement or the National

Crime Victimization Survey, showed a decrease in homicide rates, and improved medical practices have nothing to do with those declines (Hemenway, & Solnick, 2015). In addition, Cook & Goss (2014) noted two of the major arguments in the realm of gun control are that one “guns do not kill people, people kill people” or “guns do not kill

people, they just make it easier to do.” Cook & Goss (2014) concluded that data showed

that over 90% of deadly attacks on law enforcement primarily involved firearms.

Mikhail (1996) found that all assassinations on U.S. presidents used a gun.

23

Mass Shootings

One of the core difficulties in accounting for gun violence is that often the

definitions of what is a mass shooting vary in interpretation (Bushman, Lankford, &

Madfis, 2018). Cook & Goss (2014) have theorized and proposed that mass shootings have been on the rise. Domenech (2013) reported that the crime rate in the U.S. has been on a decline since the late 1990s and even mass shootings are not on the rise but consistent historically). Sevenans (2018) theorized that mass shootings often attract media attention if they are involved in a public space, such as schools or workplaces.

Generally, research steers to the conclusion that most violent crime is in decline,

evidence gathered by researchers does suggest that mass shootings have been on the rise

since 2011 (Domenech, 2013; Latzer, 2016).

Kopel (2017) found data that supports the perception that mass shootings are on

the rise since the mid-2000s, from one occurring per year to about three to four per year.

In response to the apparent surge of mass shootings, Cook & Goss (2014) found that the

U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Department of Education now use a “Threat Assessment

Analysis.” Holkeri, Oksanen, & Räsänen, (2015) proposed that evidence shows that

violence targeted explicitly at schools is often an impulsive act. They also found that

frequently before an incident occurred, typically classmates knew about the attackers’

plan.

Research has theorized that most attackers lacked self-control or coping with

personal failures or significant losses (Bonanno & Levenson 2014). Also, most attackers

24

have had a history of self-harm or attempts (Cook & Goss, 2014). Additionally, Cook &

Goss (2014) recommended that many attackers felt bullied or injured by others; attackers

often had access and prior experience with weapons before their attacks. While the

preceding statement is often mentioned after mass shootings, there is a lack in empirical

evidence or a theoretical framework to support the claim that those who suffer from low

self-esteem are violent prone individuals (Bushman et al., 2018).

High-risk Populations with Guns

Cook and Goss (2014), proponents often against stricter gun laws argued, that

only responsibly armed citizens could prevent a dangerous person seeking to cause harm

with a firearm. Restricting the access to guns is the standard policy platform regarding

gun control (Kleck, et al., 2016) Looking back at mass shootings in the U.S. since the

1970s, reports have suggested that 60% of mass shooters showed signs of mental illness

symptoms ranging from delusions, acute paranoia, and depression before their outburst

(Metzl & Macleish, 2015).

Cook & Goss (2014) proposed that criminals rarely acquire guns through legal

channels and that most criminals self-reported that they obtained a firearm through the underground market, borrowing or purchasing them from a family member or friend, or stealing a firearm. Research that examined how offenders obtain firearms found that prisoners in a national survey reported that about only 20% of them received a firearm through a store (Cook & Goss 2014). Following the prior research, most guns used in mass shootings ranging from Tucson, Newtown, Aurora, or Isla Vista were not obtained

25

through legal outlets (Metzl & Macleish, 2015). Wintemute (2007) proposed that

prohibited individuals obtain guns from gun shows, unregulated private sales with no

background check systems, stolen or taken from a family member without their consent.

Studies by Cook & Goss (2014) showed a positive correlation between the level

of gun ownership and (1) the theft of a firearm in a burglary; (2) the chance that male

youth carry firearms; and (3) the prevalence of robberies involving a gun. Chappell

(2014) reported that within the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related

Conditions (NESARC) the research recommended that those who suffered from severe

mental illnesses and substance abuse were higher risks for incidents of violence.

Ultimately, from the previous statement, one could conclude that restricting the mentally

ills access to firearms is a step in the right direction.

The Effectiveness of Firearm Policies

Kleck et al. (2016) stated that many of the studies regarding firearms research,

they criticized their methodological grounds due to; accounting for other factors, studying

particular areas only, lack of known gun ownership, local laws not considered for, and secondary sources. Cook & Goss (2014) presented data that showed that out of 1000 firearms submitted for tracking by law enforcement organizations, only three were machine guns. Also, research steers to this conclusion due to strict federal regulations on machine guns (Cook & Goss, 2014). Palazzolo and Bialik (2012) concluded that the

National Research Council recommended that no gun law has proven effective in

26

reducing civilian gun ownership, decreasing or increasing violent crime, or preventing prohibited individuals from obtaining firearms.

When evaluating the handgun bans that took place in the District of Colombia and the City of Chicago, Cook & Goss (2014) reported that those bans had little to no effect in reducing guns used by criminals, as well as it did not hinder handgun ownership among the public in the area. One plausible explanation is that these cities are not an isolated island making it harder to control the flow of guns. The demand for handguns does correlate with the rate of crime, but in turn with the increases in crime, it can create a demand for firearms (Donodue, 2003). Moreover, Donohue (2003) theorized that this leads to pressure on legislators to enact laws that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-protection. Researchers have argued that Chicago or D.C residents could effortlessly go into another nearby state or city with more lax gun laws and purchase a gun legally, and then bring the gun back into the restricted area (Cook & Goss, 2014;

Kahane, 2013). When examining gun buyback programs and their ability to reduce gun violence, Cook & Goss (2014) concluded, the available data affirmed that these programs are not an effective means in reducing gun violence.

The effectiveness of the 1994 assault weapons ban, Koper & Roth (2001) concluded that pre-ban studies examining the use of assault weapons in the commission of a crime, assault weapons only accounted for about 1% to 8% in crimes committed with a firearm. These numbers though depended on the source of data and the specific definitions defining an assault weapon (Koper & Roth, 2001). Measuring the

27

effectiveness of the 1994 assault weapons ban, Gius (2014) reported that it did show a

temporary decline in the use of assault weapons in reported crimes after the ban took effect, but overall, posed no significant results. Furthermore, Gius (2014) critiqued the ability to measure the actual impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, because it was hampered and limited by grandfathering provisions to the ban and these weapons only accounted for a small frequency in crime before the ban took effect. In the evaluation of waiting periods for gun purchases or gun registration, research presented by Kleck &

Patterson (1993) recommended that they have no significant effect on the rates of

violence.

Rosenfeld, Deckard, & Blackburn (2014) reviewed the effectiveness of a 9-month

randomized controlled hot spot policing effort to reduce the frequency of firearm assaults

and robberies in St. Louis, Missouri. From their examination, they noted that these

hotspot interventions did reduce nondomestic firearm assaults positively, and showed no

evident displacement effect on the surrounding area. Through this type of firearms

enforcement using hot spot policing, Rosenfeld, Deckard, & Blackburn (2014) reported

that it did not show any effect on robberies committed with a firearm. From the supply

and demand position, one can argue that gun control creates an environment where

people may seek to protect themselves with a weapon in response to a perceived increase

in crime or perceived gun ban (Kcpq-TV, 2018).

28

Concealed Carry

Concealed carry (CC) is the act of carrying a weapon (handgun) in a manner

concealed from plain view although the definition covers CC generally each state has its

legal meaning of the action (Gius, 2018). When discussing CC, Lyons (2017) noted the importance that carrying a firearm in a concealed manner is not federally regulated.

Therefore each state can choose how it interprets and implements concealed carry making it challenging to study (Lyons, 2017). Recently though, legislation titled the

“Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015” has been working through the

U.S. House and Senate regarding expanding concealed carry federally to where a CC permit must be recognized by all states like a driver’s licenses (CRKBA, 2015). When discussing concealed carry, it can be broken up into four categories of permits, starting with unrestricted, shall issue, may issue, and prohibited (Barati, 2016).

Types of Concealed Carry

The first category of concealed carry (CC) permit is “Unrestricted permits,’’ which allow for those legally allowed to possess a firearm to carry a handgun in a concealed fashion without a license (Gius, 2018). The next type of (CC) is a “Shall issue permit” under this category to carry concealed a permit is required, but states and counties must issue the permit to any qualified person who applies for the permit (Moody

& Marvell, 2008). Regarding a state with a “May issue permit,” states and counties can restrict or deny requests for CC permits (Tucker, Stoutenborough, & Beverlin, 2012).

Lastly, there are “Prohibited” (CC) states, in the past few states prohibited the carrying of

29

a concealed firearm, but as of 2018, no state prohibits CC (Gius, 2018). The most recent legal precedent to affect (CC) was the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision The District of

Columbia v. Hellner, this case struck down the earlier D.C handgun ban and reaffirmed that Americans do have a Constitutional right to own a gun for legal purposes (History of gun-control legislation, 2012).

Concealed Carry & Crime

According to Donohue (2003), specific research has shown that legally carrying a concealed weapon reduces rates of serious crime, and the decrease in crime is more significant than the frequency of accidental shootings. Kleck (2015) proposed that the demand for handguns correlates with the rate of crime, which in turn lead to the conclusion that an increase in crime creates an increased demand for firearms. Fennell

(2009) proposed that this fear leads to pressure on legislators to enact laws that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-protection. Under the concept that more concealed weapon carriers reduces crime frequency, Donohue (2003) mentioned that it is reckless to draw a conclusion if concealed carry reduces crime. The author’s research sustained that data varies from state to county, furthermore with a lack of standard measurements, it makes evaluating the effects on concealed carry laws and its impact on crime challenging to claim. Research examining firearms and crime concluded that to summarize that one significantly effects the other is not factual to state due to a lack of adequate data (Palazzolo, & Bialik, 2012). When defending yourself stand your ground laws have been at the forefront of the gun debate, Cook & Goss (2014) reported that

30

recent studies conducted by an economist at Georgia State University & Texas A&M,

concluded that stand your ground laws did not correlate with a reduction in assaults,

rapes, or robberies; but do connect with a decrease in homicide rate.

Campus Concealed Carry

As of 2017, ten states have authorized legislation, which permits students, faculty,

and staff to carry concealed firearms on college campuses (Lyons, 2017). The author

highlights that concealed carry (CC) on campus is a relatively new law because most CC laws on college campuses were not enacted before 2010. Also, Gius (2018) theorized that recent studies examining CC employed old data that may have incorrectly reported the real effects of CC on campus and its impact on crime. While shootings on a college campus are not commonplace, universities have enacted security policies to address these security concerns (O'Rourke, 2013). Again, as of 2017, only ten states have permitted students, staff, and faculty to possess firearms concealed on campus (Gius, 2018).

Authors Jang, Dierenfeldt, & Lee (2014), proposed that college campus CC is often generalized rather than evidence-based. The authors believed that there is a lack of data examining whether anxiety and fear lead students to support CC policies on campus.

Prior research examining students’ perceptions on CC on campus concluded that students who are more prone to carry are white, males, politically conservative, concerned about crime on campus, criminal justice students, and questioned the ability of the police to protect them (Thompson et al., 2013).

31

Theory

Virginia Tech was one of the deadliest mass shootings to occur on a college

campus in the U.S. (Gius, 2018). This tragic event spurred the idea if one of those

bystanders could have legally possessed a firearm on campus there could have been

fewer deaths (Rogers et al., 2018). Following a school shooting, the public’s perception of guns and crime tend to subscribe to the idea that crime is on the rise in America

(Latzer, 2016). Counter to this perception Domenech (2013) found that the crime rate in the U.S. has been declining since the late 1990s. Domench (2013) further concluded that mass shootings are not increasing in frequency, but are consistent historically.

Concerning concealed carry research has suggested that acquiring a permit to carry can likely alter one’s “routine activity” (Schwaner, Furr, Negrey, & Seger, 1999). The authors proposed that one’s sense of vulnerability stems from one’s fear of crime, and carrying a firearm for self-protection might be a mechanism to relive that fear.

Routine Activity Theory

Routine Activity Theory sought to predict and comprehend why crime rates in

America changed post-World War II America (Reyns, 2013). Reyns (2013) draws from the original authors Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen (1979), they concluded that crime could occur or be more prone when there is: a suitable target, lack of guardianship, and a motivated offender. Most germane to this study is the Thompson et al. (2013) study which reported that white, male, conservatives are more prone to support concealed carry on college campus policies. Thus, the utility of Routine Activity Theory as a

32

backdrop to theoretically explain the potential fear of victimization along with the

differences noted by Thompson et al. (2013) between male and female perceptions of concealed carry on a college campus, supports this theoretical foundation and inquiry into any gender-based perceptions of concealed carry on a college campus.

33

Chapter 3

Methodology

Research has noted that the perceptions male and female students’ have towards

concealed carry differ in a variety of cases (Doubleday, 2013; Gius, 2018; Jang,

Dierenfeldt, & Lee, 2014). This research seeks to investigate the potential impact one’s

gender may have towards his/her support for concealed carry on campus. Currently,

research regarding the topic of concealed carry on college campuses is minimal and

contains mixed results. This research implicitly seeks to explore some Criminal Justice

college students’ perceptions have towards concealed carry on college campuses and if

one's gender could have any effect on one’s support for concealed carry on college

campuses. The findings from this research could further add to the limited amount of

literature regarding the topic of guns on college campuses and students perceptions. In

summation, this study seeks to understand why some students support or do not support concealed carry policies on college campuses, and specifically if gender has any statistical effect on one’s support.

To conduct this research, the targeted sample is courses containing Criminal

Justice undergraduate students at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) during

the Spring 2019 semester. To collect data for this research, a survey was dispersed to thirteen criminal justice undergraduate classes during the Spring 2019 semester. The survey was made available for research participants to either access the survey through their Sacramento State Canvas accounts or by manually entering the link to access the

34

survey if they consented to participate. The next section will further elaborate upon this

study’s design, the sample, and the process of the study.

Study Design

The central theme of this study design is to explore and examine the different

perceptions both males and females have towards concealed carry on college campuses.

This research briefly examined political and racial demographics to observe if it had any

significant statistical effect on one’s perception of concealed carry. Prior research

examined by Thompson et al. (2013) proposed that those who are white-males and

politically conservative tend to support concealed carry. To examine these perceptions, a

survey was proposed to serve as a research design to examine the perceptions males’ and

females’ have towards concealed carry on a college campus. Researchers Jang,

Dierenfeldt, & Lee (2014), have commented on prior research regarding concealed carry

on college campuses and argued that there is a lack in adequate research exploring what

drives college students to support or not support the carrying of a concealed firearm on

campus.

Generalities / Overview

The beginning of the survey asks consenting respondents about their general

opinions about their safety on campus and their fears about having concealed carry

policies on campuses. Within the survey, respondents selected from multiple answers,

which they best identified. In some cases, respondents either selected multiple answers or typed in an answer to a question if the options presented did not suit their response. Later

35

into the survey, it asked respondents if they would or would not carry a concealed

weapon (firearm/ handgun) on college campuses if legally permitted.

If respondents chose to carry a concealed weapon if legally permitted to, they

were, then asked why they would choose to do so. Respondents who chose not to carry a concealed weapon if legally permitted were then asked to why they would not carry. The next set of questions centered on general knowledge or interactions around firearms respondents have had. Respondents were then asked about the perceptions they have about concealed weapons on being permitted on a college campus. Lastly, respondents

were asked basic demographic questions such as race, age, sex/gender, political identity,

choice in media, whether they were a first-year student and so on, and lastly what their

major was/field of study.

As mentioned above, prior research conducted by Thompson et al. (2013), found

through surveys, that on college campuses, white males, who are predominately

politically conservative, tended to support concealed carry policies on college campuses.

Thompson et al. (2013) suggested that criminal justice students tend to worry about crime

on campus more and question the ability of local law enforcement to protect them. Lastly,

Thompson et al. (2013) noted that criminal justice students’ are more prone to support concealed carry on college campuses compared to other majors.

Instrument / Data Collection

To conduct this research, the researcher selected a survey as the instrument for this study, which was to be administered to Criminal Justice undergraduate students at

36

California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) during the Spring 2019 semester via

Qualtrics. The researcher developed a survey on Sacramento State University’s version of

the online survey system, Qualtrics.

Qualtrics is a simple web-based survey tool used to conduct survey research,

evaluations and other data collection tasks. The function of this site is to give those with

little to no experience the ability to use this survey tool to build surveys, send surveys and

evaluate responses – from any online location, any time a researcher would need.

Before seeking research participants, during the Spring 2019 semester, the researcher submitted an Institutional Review Board Application (IRB) to the University

IRB to receive approval to conduct this survey research. Upon receiving approval, the researcher then sought criminal justice professors who taught during the Spring 2019 semester to inquire if they would have any interest in opening their classroom to participate in this research. This procedure was not random but rather purposive and convenience sampling due to the nature of the study and ease by which Criminal Justice students could be recruited/surveyed, in addition to the researcher having a prior rapport with Criminal Justice professors. Criminal Justice professors were contacted in-person via office hours through drop-in visits and via email. During this informal inquiry,

Criminal Justice professors were given a brief explanation of the study and its goals and shown a sample of the survey along with the researcher’s IRB approval. After these efforts, the Criminal Justice professors were asked if they would like to participate in this research.

37

The researcher chose to select Criminal Justice courses offered at Sacramento

State during the Spring 2019 semester with class sizes above 30 students enrolled.

Information about the criminal justice course, time, and classroom was found through

Sacramento State University, Sacramento Class Search/Browse Catalog section searched through any students’ Sacramento State account (California State University,

Sacramento, 2019). To find Criminal Justice courses during the Spring 2019 semester,

the researcher used this site to find the exact Criminal Justice courses, the time,

professors, and room numbers.

In total, the researcher contacted seven professors within the Division of Criminal

Justice to survey 13 criminal justice courses during the Spring 2019 semester. Of the

seven professors this researcher reached out to, six professors agreed to permit their

courses to participate in this research. Those who permitted their classes to partake within

this research were given a form with instructions on how to add the survey to their

Canvas account for students to access (see Appendix A). Professors who preferred not to

upload the survey link via Canvas were given strips of paper with the survey’s link for

consenting participants to manually enter in the link via their phones or laptops to take

the survey.

The researcher also went to each course with the professor who permitted their

class to be surveyed. The researcher introduced the topic of the survey and the

researcher’s intent of the research (see Appendix A). Mainly, the researcher explained the

survey to the Criminal Justice students and how to access the survey. The students were

38

informed about their rights as research participants and the potential benefits their

participation could have for future research. Those who consented to participate in the

survey filled out the survey via Qualtrics.

Criminal Justice students who were given the opportunity if they consented to

take the survey, could access the survey through their student canvas accounts provided

to them by the university. The survey (see Appendix A) contained an implied consent

form informing the students about their rights as research participants and their ability to

decline to take the voluntary survey. It also informed them that the survey contained 35

questions. All survey questions were written as concisely as possible, in order to reduce potential respondent fatigue by all those consenting to take the survey. Questions 1-7 focused on students’ perceptions on crime on campus, perceived fears to crime, fear of firearms on campus, and their perception of safety on campus. Questions 8-10 focused on perceptions and prior knowledge of the legality of concealed carry on college campuses.

The next batch of questions, 11- 14, centered around the theme of what (if any) measures students have taken to protect themselves on campus and attempt to gauge their support or opinions regarding concealed carry on campus. Questions 15-23 attempted to explore a student’s prior and current knowledge/perceptions regarding concealed carry on college campuses and firearms in general. Questions 24-26, further asked research participants about their support for concealed carry policies and why they support these policies. The last group of questions, 27-35, sought general demographic information.

39

The survey was developed and designed to clearly and concisely show a distinct theme of the survey in an attempt to help them complete it in a more comfortable, more viable manner. To briefly summarize the lay-out of the survey, it begins with the student’s perceptions of crime on campus, respondent’s knowledge of concealed carry on college campuses, action(s) students have engaged into feel safe or protect themselves on campus, their opinions/perceptions of concealed carry on college campuses, and lastly, demographic questions. The estimated time to complete this survey ranged from 10-15 minutes.

Sample

The sample for this study was California State University, Sacramento undergraduate Criminal Justice students during the Spring 2019 semester who agreed to participate in the study. Students seeking a criminal justice degree were initially selected because the topic of concealed carry on campus would likely interest some students.

Concealed carry (CC) is a very political issue with a vast amount of information about

CC circulating throughout the media or other various media outlets. Through non- random, purposive and convenience sampling, possible Criminal Justice respondents, were gathered through visits to selected Criminal Justice classrooms. Due to the ease of being able to access these respondents was a primary reason why a non-random, purposive, convenience sampling technique was employed by the researcher. The selected Criminal Justice courses included: CRJ-101-07 Introduction to Criminal Justice

Research Methods; 141-02 Police and Society; CRJ 102-01 Crime And Punishment; CRJ

40

114-01 Sexual Offenses and Offenders; CRJ 111-01 Women and the Criminal Justice

System; CRJ 123-06 Law of Arrest, Search and Seizure; CRJ 125-01 Law of

Responsibility; CRJ 163-01 Leadership in Criminal Justice and Public Safety; CRJ 144-

01 Contemporary Issues in Police Administration; CRJ 163-02 Leadership in Criminal

Justice and Public Safety; CRJ 160-02 Justice and Public Safety Administration; CRJ

190-03 Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice; and, CRJ 190-07 Contemporary Issues

in Criminal Justice.

Although this list of undergraduate Criminal Justice classes seems rather all-

inclusive, it should not be interpreted as generalizable due to the lack of randomization

and (biased) self-selection within classes. This researcher would argue even in the

presence of methodologically appropriate randomization, self-selection due to the

controversial subject matter would invalidate any generalization beyond the respondents.

The survey was given to a possible 625 students. The researcher inquired during

Criminal Justice classroom visits if professors would disclose the classroom enrollment

to the researcher. The total number of all those enrolled in the surveyed classes was 625

students. From this number of 625 potential respondents, 166 surveys were registered as

taken or in progress, however only 149 responses were useable. The seventeen responses

that were not accounted for were discarded due to do incompleteness leaving a sample

size of 149. To calculate the response rate the researcher divided 149 by 625, resulting in

the percentage of 23.84 for the response rate for the survey. When concerning response

rate for survey research, prior researchers have estimated typical response rates for in-

41

person or online surveys range from 20 percent to 10 percent, but in some reported cases, it can range from 1 to 10 percent (Paxson, 1995; Fryrear, 2015).

In addition, Fryrear (2015) proposed that a reasonable response rate for surveys ranged from 30 to 40 percent. This survey’s research yielded a 23.84% response rate, which is typical to the average response rates of 20 percent to 10 percent (Fryrear, 2015;

Paxson, 1995). Paxson (1995) recommended that in survey research the typical response rate falls within 20 percent to 10 percent. Therefore, this research’s response rate of

23.84% appears to be typical within the average response rates which range from 20 to 10 percent in the field of survey research (Paxson, 1995).

Descriptive Information

The sample included data from 149 individuals, but two of the surveys were excluded due to incompleteness, leaving a sample size of 147, consisting of 73 male respondents (50%), and 74 female respondents (50%). For the age variable, respondents were given the option to type in their age. Those who disclosed their age (n = 143) with the mean age being = 22.94 years in age with a standard deviation s = 3.69 and age ranges from 22.33 to𝑥𝑥 ̅23.55 fell within the 95% confidence interval (CI). The next demographic to be noted is race. Of the 149 who responded in the race category the sample is made up of 37% (54) Latin / Mexican / Hispanic, 32% (48) White, 1% (1)

African American / Black, 10% (15) Asian, 2% (3) American Indian/ Alaskan Native, 2%

(3) Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander, 11% (16) other, and 5% (8) chose to identify as

Multiple Ethnicities.

42

Variables

Independent Variables

Within the literature, each of the following variables was identified to possess a potential impact on perceptions of concealed carry on college campuses. All of the variables selected within this section are perceived to be relevant due to their importance in prior literature. Precisely, the researcher controlled for gender when measuring perceptions of concealed carry on college campuses.

Fear. Multiple measures of fear were developed within the survey. The first set of questions (1-7) focused on perceived fear. Questions (13, 14, 15, &17) ranged from what measures have students’ have taken to feel “safer.” Question 18 mainly measured if a student perceives that school shootings are on the rise, and (Question 20) seeks to what fear or fears cause students to prefer no guns on campuses. The questions were coded in a

Likert-like fashion where higher codes (4&5) represent a more positive value, while

lower codes (1&2) suggested a negative or (3) a null value.

Self. The first set of questions, it measured self-perceptions. Questions (1-7)

focused on students’ perceptions about their presence on campus and if they feel safe.

Questions (8,10, & 24) centered around the theme of supporting guns on campus.

Question 8 asked if they knew California prohibits the legal carrying of a concealed

firearm on campus. Question 10 asked if respondents would carry a concealed-carry weapon if legally permitted to while on campus — question 24 asked respondents if they support concealed firearms on college campuses. Again, the coding method for these

43

questions was reasonably typical for Likert-like 1 – 5 answers where “1” was negative

and “5” was positive. No reverse coding was used for these questions.

Race. The definition for a race within this research is broadly associated with

racial identity. Participants were asked on question 30 to self-describe their perceived race from the following selections: White, Black/African American, American

Indians/Native Alaskan, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or other. The categorically assigned codes from highest to lowest values (6 -1) were recorded.

Demographics. Questions 27-35 focused on critical demographic information

from the sample. Question 28 requested that students’ to fill in their age in years using a numerical value. Question 29 focused on gender. Male was coded as “1” while female was coded “0”, and decline to answer was coded “99”. It should be noted that either male or female could be reverse coded but was coded in a “traditional” manner. The 31st

question asked if an individual has served in any military branch with a yes “1” or no “0”

coded option. Question 32 measures one’s political affiliation with Republican being

coded “1”, and Democrat coded “2”, Independent coded “3”, other coded “4” and

declined to answer coded “99”. Again, there is no “right way” to code these but rather,

pragmatic ways. Regarding media consumption, question 33 measured where students’

obtain their news. These were coded as, CNN coded “1”, Fox coded “2”, Vice coded “3”,

Social media coded “4”, Friends and family coded “5”, Other coded as “6”, and declined

to answer coded “99”. Lastly, question 34 & 35, focused on a students’ status as a first- year student to a sixth-year where the First-year student was coded “1”, Second-year

44

student coded “2”, Third-year student coded “3”, Fourth-year student coded “4”, Fifth- year student coded “5”, and Sixth-year student or more coded “6”. As for student major, or they're declared major the coding follows as Criminal Justice coded “1”,

Communications coded “2”, and Other please specify coded “3”.

Environment. Question 23 centered around a students’ perception if they believed/perceived that California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) administration supports the policy of allowing for students and/or staff to carry a concealed firearm if legally permitted to do so. Respondents were given two options to select from with yes coded as “1” and no coded “0”.

Dependent Variable

Gender. Previous research by Thompson et al. (2013) studying students perceptions on concealed carry on colleges campuses suggested that students who are more prone to carry were white, males, politically conservative, who are concerned about crime on campus, were criminal justice students and questioned the ability of the police to protect them. However, it is not clear as to why this group tends to favor concealed carry policies on college campuses compared to females. As noted above, male was coded as “1” while female was coded “0”, and decline to answer was coded “99”.

Reason for Selecting Criminal Justice Majors

Students seeking a criminal justice degree were selected as the targeted sample because the topic of concealed carry on campus would likely strike an interest of some students. Concealed carry (CC) is a very political issue, with a vast amount of

45

information about CC circulating throughout the media or other various media outlets.

This research seeks to examine the perceptions that California State University,

Sacramento, Criminal Justice students have towards concealed carry on college campuses. It is essential to mention that Criminal Justice students can potentially have a biased opinion regarding this topic.

Reason For Not Sampling Other Populations

When looking at perceptions of concealed carry on college campuses, surveying the whole CSUS population would provide a precious and valuable data set. However, due to time constraints and lack of adequate resources to survey the entire university population, the researcher thought it would be more prudent to survey a smaller-scale sample, i.e., Criminal Justice majors during the Spring 2019 semester. The results from this research may also provide results which that may support prior research regarding the topic. Furthermore, it was assumed that specific segments, i.e., Criminal Justice majors might hold certain perceptions towards the topic that would make them more prone to be in favor of concealed carry on college campuses as opposed to other students and majors on campus. From these perceptions, researchers can further explore and understand how and why certain segments of the population hold certain perceptions towards a given topic.

Sample Limitations

Due to the use of non-random, convenience, and purposive sampling, results can affect the generalizability of the sample. Data obtained from California State University,

46

Sacramento Performance Indicators outlines the population size of the university. From

this information, the Performance Indicators show that the total number of students

enrolled for the Fall 2017 semester was 30,661 (Sacramento State, 2019). Particularly

within the Division of Criminal Justice, it is made up of 1,509 students; with 441 new students and 1,068 continuing students (Sacramento State, 2019). This research targeted a

particular sample comprising Criminal Justice students during the Spring 2019 semester.

This sample does not equally represent the population and demographic makeup of all

college students at California State University, Sacramento; therefore the findings from

this research cannot be generalized to the entire university population or even, all

Criminal Justice students. Prior research conducted by Thompson et al. (2013) found that

Criminal Justice students tend to hold favorable views towards concealed carry; therefore this can be a potential bias and limitation within the study.

Survey fatigue can potentially reduce the sample size, due to some respondents potentially not answering questions; this could also affect the generalizability and

findings of the research. One strength of this research is that it can help add to the current gap in research regarding concealed carry on colleges campuses and college students’ perceptions of it.

Protection of Human Subjects

This research was approved by the CSUS Institutional Review Board during the

Spring 2019 semester. Informing potential participants about the purpose of the research,

their rights as a participant, resources available on campus for any distress caused by the

47

survey, and the contact information of the primary investigatory along with their thesis committees contact information can potentially help reduce any stress and ensure the protection of research participants. This information can be found within the implied consent form (see Appendix A). Students partaking within the survey were informed multiple times that it is voluntary. They could also access the consent form at any time to remind them of all their rights as a research participant, and they can choose to terminate their participation within the survey at any time.

Conclusion

The survey employed for this research sought to gather the data necessary to assess the research questions: to explore some Criminal Justice college students’ perceptions towards concealed carry on college campuses and, whether one's gender affects their perceptions of concealed carry on a college campus. To examine these perceptions, all the surveys were reviewed, coded, and input into SPSS by the primary investigator. Before the previously mentioned step, the data was reviewed and analyzed to ensure the coding and analyses were conducted correctly. This process will be further elaborated upon in “Chapter Four: Analysis of the Data & Findings.”

48

Chapter 4

Analysis of Data & Findings

The researcher obtained his data by administering a survey of about 35 questions

to thirteen Criminal Justice courses. The targeted sample was criminal justice majors.

However, students who were enrolled in other majors were enrolled in some of the

surveyed Criminal Justice courses. In total, the survey was distributed to roughly 625 students with 166 responding, and 149 (23.84%) of the responses were able to be used due to incomplete or otherwise invalid responses. The data compiled from the survey was analyzed through Microsoft Excel (2013) and SPSS (Ver. 25) for devising descriptive and ANOVA statistical analyses.

Aside from the basic descriptive statistics for the demographics in order to answer

general perceptions across the sample, ANOVAs were used for the gender differences (if

any) on select questions. All of the ANOVA analyses run for this thesis were one-way

between-subjects analyses of variance ANOVA. In this case, “one-way” indicates there is

only one categorical variable (gender), and “between-subjects” means that each

participant was only included in one of the gender groups - as opposed to a within-

subjects test which allows participants to belong to multiple groups.

The primary goal of an ANOVA is to examine group differences (i.e., is Group A

significantly different from Group B?). This is done by “splitting” the sample based on

the variable (gender) and gathering the difference between each score on an answer to a

question and the overall sample mean for those answers. The final result of each ANOVA

49

is a Fisher’s ratio or F ratio. One would expect to see an F ratio much larger than 1 if gender perceptions differed substantially (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2013). As well, one would also hope to see a statistically significant difference in answers as represented in p < .05 for this study meaning that the probability of this outcome was 5 or less in a sample of 100. Thus, an F ratio of 1 and a p = .25 would lead the researcher to conclude there was no difference and that “no difference” was not statistically significantly different. However, an outcome of an F ratio of 22 and a p < .02 would signify there was a difference, and it was statistically significantly different.

Descriptive Statistics

In total, 166 students participated in the survey, but only 149 of the responses could be interpreted and coded into Excel or SPSS for an ANOVA or descriptive statistical analysis.

Table 1

Participant Age

n M(SD) 95% CI 143 22.94(3.69) [22.33, 23.55]

As seen in Table 1, out of 143 responses both males and females responded with a mean age of - = 22.94 with a Standard Deviation s= 3.69. Lastly, ages within this surveyed population𝑥𝑥̅ fell within a Confidence Interval (CI) of - 95%. This means 95% of ages (data) ranged between 22.33 to 23.55.

50

Table 2

Political Background

n Rep Dem. Ind. Other Politics 133 30 (22%) 62 (47%) 30 (23%) 11 (8%)

Table 2 focused on displaying the political makeup of the sample. From the data,

133 responded, out of that sample 30 (22%) identified as Republican, 62 (47%) identified

as Democrat, 30 (23%) identified as Independent, and lastly 11 (8%) identified as Other.

The reason why this demographic was explored is that previous literature inferred those

who identify as politically conservative (i.e., Republicans) tend to hold more favorable

views towards concealed carry policies on college campuses (Thompson et al., 2013).

From here the researcher sought to examine this demographic to the observer if those

who self-identified as Republican would hold a more favorable perception towards

concealed carry policies on college campuses.

Table 3

Gender

n Male Female Gender 147 73 (50%) 74 (50%)

Following the previous literature and the central theme of this research, the

research sought to examine if gender had any significant effect on one’s support for concealed carry policies on college campuses.

51

Table 4

Ethnicity / Race

Native Ethnicity White Black Asian Hawaiian Latin Other Multi American 48 1 15 2 4 49 16 13

(32%) (1%) (10%) (1.35%) (2.70%) (33.11%) (11%) (8.78%) Note: n=148

52

As seen in Table 4, the two largest demographics were both White 48 (32%) and

Latin/Mexican/Hispanic (33.11%). While at first Latin/Mexican/Hispanic was not directly included as an option for respondents to select, respondents were given the option to type in their self-identified racial demographic. Looking at prior research,

Thompson et al. (2013) concluded that white males tended to support concealed carry

policies on college campuses compared to other demographic groups. The researcher here

found it essential to examine this demographic to see if in fact that white males tended to

support concealed carry policies on college campuses compared to others in different

racial groups.

Table 5

Participant Majors

Majors CRJ COMM PSY POL SCI BUSI Other 129(86%) 5 (3.4%) 2 (1.3%) 2 (1.3%) 4 (2.7%) 7 (4.7%) Note: n=149

Table 5 outlines the participants’ indicated majors. With a sample of 149, it

consisted of 129 (86%) Criminal Justice majors, 5 (3.4%) Communications majors, 2

(1.3%) Psychology majors, 2 (1.3%) Political Science majors, 4 (2.7%) Business majors,

and 7 (4.7%) Other declared majors. The researcher found this an essential factor to

examine based upon prior research finding that Criminal Justice majors tended to

question law enforcement’s ability to protect them. Therefore, these groups tend to

support concealed carry policies more often (Thompson et al., 2013).

53

From prior research, it often claimed that white, male, politically conservative,

Criminal Justice majors tended to support concealed carry policies on a college campus.

Therefore, the researcher sought to examine these particular variables: gender, age, politics, and major to explore if they had any profound effect on one’s support of concealed carry policies on a college campus.

Research Design Part II

The researcher primarily employed an analysis of variances ANOVA statistical test to analyze the findings from the survey. Under this statistical method, an ANOVA analysis is a statistical method in which a researcher seeks to access the contribution of an independent variable to the mean value of a continuous dependent variable (Porta &

Last, 2018). This method consists of identifying the value of variability within the responses, summing the squares of differences from the total mean value, and imploring complex calculations which permits computation of degrees of freedom, to test the statistical significance of the independent variables (Porta & Last, 2018). No statistically significant differences were found between gender and the answers to questions 1, 2, 3, 6,

8, and 21.

ANOVA by Gender

Multiple one-way analyses of variance ANOVA were calculated on participants’ responses to items with a continuous or binary (Yes, No) response scale with an adequate sample size of more or less than 149 on questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, 21, 24, and 25). An ANOVA was conducted to determine if males or females

54

reported higher scores on each question item. Any significant results are broken down by the particular question below. If a question was not included below, it meant either it was not applicable for an ANOVA analysis or was found to be non-significant at the p < .05 level. The following stipulates the question number with the abbreviation “Q” and the actual question number within the survey succeeded by the phrasing of the question verbatim.

Q4: In one week, how often do you fear someone carrying a concealed firearm on campus? This analysis was significant, F 1,142 = 7.26, p = .008, n = 144.

Female participants x̅ = 1.96, s = .91 reported significantly higher values than male participants x̅ = 1.57, s = .82, indicating women felt fear of someone carrying a concealed firearm on campus more often than males.

Q5: After you hear about a college shooting, does this provoke or increase your fear of a shooting on your campus? This analysis was significant, F 1,143 = 26.67, p < .001, n = 145. Female participants x̅ = 3.83, s = 1.05 indicated significantly higher responses than male participants x̅ = 2.88, s = 1.18. This shows that females were more likely than males to feel fear about a shooting on their campus after hearing about a college shooting.

Q7: How safe do you feel being on campus, after you hear about a college shooting? This analysis was significant, F 1,144 = 15.18, p < .001, n = 146. Female participants x̅ = 2.91, s = 1.17 reported significantly lower responses than male

55

participants x̅ = 3.60, s = .959. This indicates that male participants feel safer on campus than female students after hearing about a college shooting.

Q8: Did you know that current California State law currently prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm on campus? As seen in Figure 1, respondents were asked if they knew that current California State law currently prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm on campus. When looking at the responses by both male and female respondents, a majority roughly (70%) in both groups appeared to know that is currently not legal to carry a concealed firearm on college campuses.

22 (29.7%) No 17 (23.3%)

52 (70.3%) Yes 56 (76.7%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Female Male

Figure 1. Male vs. female response of knowledge regarding state law and carrying concealed on campus. N=149.

Q9: Should anyone with a concealed weapon permit have the ability to carry

around a firearm (handgun) for self-protection on their college campuses? This

analysis was significant, F 1,144 = 30.12, p < .001, n = 146. Female participants x̅ = 2.38, s

= 1.38 had significantly lower scores than males x̅ = 3.67, s = 1.45 indicating males were

56

more likely than females to believe that anyone who has a concealed weapon permit

should be able to carry a firearm for self-protection on college campuses.

Q10: If the carrying of a concealed weapon (handgun) was permitted by both law and the University, would you feel safe knowing anyone with a concealed weapon permit, could possess a weapon (handgun) while on campus?

This analysis was significant, F 1,140 = 45.01, p < .001, n= 142. Female

participants x̅ = .24, s = .43 scored significantly lower on average than males x̅ = .74, s =

.44. Because this item had a Yes/No response (0 = No, 1 = Yes), we can interpret this

ANOVA. The results indicate that males were significantly more likely than females to indicate they would feel safe knowing anyone with a concealed weapon permit could possess a handgun while on campus if the law were permitting.

53 (75.7%) No 19 (26.4%)

17 (24.3) Yes 53 (73.6%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Female Male

Figure 2. Males vs. females response if permitted to carry concealed, would you feel safe knowing anyone with a concealed weapon permit could possess a weapon while on campus

57

Q13: You stated you would carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted

to. What would encourage you to do so?

For question 13, the researcher speculated that there perhaps could have been an

error or a glitch within the survey due to such a low response rate. For example, on

average the previous questions were receiving over 100 responses. Question 13 only received 37 responses. Another potential error within this question was a typo for one of the responses available. The second response was supposed to say, “Good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun” instead it actual said, “Good guy with a bad guy stops a gun.” From this error it could have both reduced response rates out of confusion or a potential glitch could not have shown this question to respondents.

I have a concealed weapon already, and it would be 7.7% (1) less to worry about. 8.3% (2)

Good guy with a bad guy stops a gun. 15.4% (2) 33.3% (8)

2nd amendment right. 23.1% (3) 54.2% (13)

I have the right to defend myself. 46.2% (6) 70.8% (17)

I would feel safe. 61.5% (8) 50.0% (12)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Female Male

Figure 3. Male vs. female response to what would encourage you to carry a handgun on campus is legally permitted to?

58

Q14: If you were able to legally carry a concealed weapon (handgun) on

campus would you feel safer on campus? This analysis was significant, F 1,139 = 9.93, p

< .002, n = 141. Female participants x̅ = 2.89, s = 1.37 scored significantly lower on this

item than males x̅ = 3.62, s = 1.40, indicating that males would feel safer than females if

they were legally allowed to carry a concealed handgun on campus.

Q15: Have you ever handled or operated a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun,

or any other firearm device)? This analysis was significant, F 1,144 = 21.20, p < .001, n= 146. Female participants x̅ = .53, s = .50 scored significantly lower than male participants x̅ = .86, s = .35. Since this item had a Yes/No response (0 = No, 1 = Yes), we can interpret this ANOVA. The results indicate that males were significantly more likely than females to have handled or operated a firearm.

Q16: You stated that you have handled or operated a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, or any other firearm device). How often have you done so? This analysis was significant, F 1,100 = 14.79, p < .001, n = 102. Female participants x̅ = 1.97, s

= 1.04) scored significantly lower than males x̅ = 2.79, s = 1.05. This indicates that

males who had handled or operated a firearm did so more often than females who had

previously handled or operated a firearm.

Q18: Do you think violence on college campuses like school shootings are on

the rise? This analysis was significant, F 1,145 = 3.91, p = < .050, n= 147. Female

participants x̅ = 3.46, s = 1.13 scored significantly higher than males x̅ = 3.08, s = 1.19.

59

This indicates that females indicated a stronger belief that violence on college campuses

is on the rise compared to males.

Q19: What is your opinion on gun laws in California? This analysis was

significant, F 1,134 = 40.85, p < .001, n = 136. Female participants x̅ = 2.74, s = 1.29

averaged significantly lower than males x̅ = 4.11, s = 1.21. This result indicates that

males were more likely than females to believe that gun laws in California are too strict.

Q20: Check all that could apply to your opinion to the question. Guns should not be allowed on campus because ______.

For this question, it revolved around why respondents did not want concealed weapons on a college campus. When examining the results as displayed in Figure 4, females tended to perceive that allowing concealed carry on campus will result in more fear by students and staff, students do not need guns on campus, more violence will ensue, police will protect from threats, more suicides will be prone, gun violence on campus will increase, do not support guns on campus, and other response.

60

49 (67.1%) Fear by students and staff. 24 32.4%

46 (63.0%) Students don't need guns on campus. 24 (32.4%)

30 (41.1%) More violence will ensue. 10 (13.5%)

22 (30.1%) Police will protect from threats. 14 (18.9%)

15 (20.5%) More suicides could be prone. 8 (10.8%)

31 (42.5%) Gun violence will increase on campus. 16 (21.6%)

26 (35.6%) Do not support guns on campus. 10 (13.5%)

10 (13.7%) Other 19 (25.7%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Female Male

Figure 4. Male vs. female responses to whether guns should be allowed on campus because ______.

Q22: I would best describe myself as. The results from this question clearly showed that males tended to self-identify as pro-gun compared to female respondents as seen in Chart 5. Out of the male sample (n=74) for this question 46 (62.2%) self- identified as Pro-gun as compared to females respondents who out of a sample of n=73, only 19 (26.0%) self-identified as Pro-gun. Furthermore, most female respondents 43

(58.9%) out of the sample n=73 self-identified as “Neutral” towards firearms.

61

12 (16.4%) Anti-gun 4 (5.4%)

43 (58.9%) Neutral 23 (31.1%)

19 (26.0%) Pro-gun 46 (62.2%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Female Male

Figure 5. Males vs. females perception to I would best describe myself as...

Q24: Do you support laws or university policies that would allow for the

concealed carry of a weapon (handgun) on campus? This analysis was significant, F

1,145 = 29.55, p < .001, n= 147. Female participants x̅ = 2.49, s = 1.16 had a significantly

lower average score than males x̅ = 3.56, s = 1.24. This shows that males were more likely than females to support laws or university policies that would allow for the concealed carrying of a handgun.

Q25: How often do you read or hear about incidents of violence on college campuses? This analysis was significant, F 1,144 = 6.15, p = <.014, n= 146. Female participants x̅ = 3.01, s = 1.02 scored significantly higher than males x̅ = 2.60, s = .98, indicating that females reported reading or hearing about incidents of violence on college campuses more often than males.

ANOVAs by Race & Politics

Q9: Should anyone with a concealed weapon permit have the ability to carry around a firearm (handgun) for self-protection on their college campuses?

62

On question nine, respondents who identified as non-white 26 (26.3%) out of 99 selected that someone should “Definitely not” be able to carry a concealed weapon on campus if legally permitted too. When compared to those who identified as white, 18

(37.5%) out of the 48 respondents selected that “Definitely yes” that someone should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus if legally permitted to. These results, the researcher could infer that whites tended to be more favorable towards concealed carry on college campuses compared to non-whites.

Definitely Not 26 (26.3%) 11 (22.9%)

Probably Not 21 (21.2%) 4 (8.3%)

Neutral 12 (12.1%) 7 (14.6%)

Probably Yes 21 (21.2%) 8 (16.7%)

Definitely Yes 19 (19.2%) 18 (37.5%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Non-White White

Figure 6. Should anyone with a concealed weapon permit, should have the ability to carry around a firearm (handgun for self-protection on their college campuses?

In the political realm, this sample consisted of a total of (n =122) participants; 62 identified as Democrat, 30 as Independent, and 30 as Republican. Within the sample of those who identified as Democrat 23 (37.1%) out of 62 were significantly against allowing an individual who was legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon to carry

63

on a college campus. Those who identified as Republican 15 (50%) out of 30 the who identified as Republican responded “Definitely yes” that someone who is legally permitted to concealed carry should be allowed to carry while on campus.

Definitely 23 (37.1%) 5 (16.7%) Not 5 (16.7%)

12 (19.4%) Probably Not 6 (20.0%) 3 (10.0%)

6 (9.7%) Neutral 5 (16.7%) 4 (13.3%)

17 (27.4%) Probably Yes 5 (16.7%) 3 (10.0%)

Definitely 4 (6.5%) 9 (30.0%) Yes 15 (50.0%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 Democrat Independent Republican

Figure 7. Should anyone with a concealed weapon permit, should have the ability to carry around a firearm (handgun) for self-protection on their college campuses?

Q22: I would best describe myself as. From question twenty-two, the researcher sought to examine if there were any differences in one’s response to question 22 and if one’s race could show any statistically significant differences. This sample consisted of

148 in total with 48 identifying as White and 100 as Non-white. As seen in Chart 8, an outcome that surprised the researcher was 34 (34%) out of the 100 who identified as

64

Non-white identified as “Pro-gun.” This surprised the researcher because research

presented by Gius (2018) reported that typically white males are “Pro-gun.”

12 Anti-gun 4

54 Neutral 13

34 Pro-gun 31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Non-White White

Figure 8. Race differences towards the perception of firearms.

From the political aspect, Figure 9 shows that this sample consisted of a total of (n

=122) participants; 62 who identified as Democrat, 30 as Independent, and 30 as

Republican. Those who identified as “Republican” 25 (83.3%) out of the 30 self-

identified Republicans appeared to self-identify as “Pro-gun.” When compared to other

political backgrounds, those who identified as “Democratic” 36 (58.0%) out of the 62

identified as “Neutral” towards firearms, when the researcher speculated that they would have responded as “Anti-gun.” The researcher speculated this, due to prior research conducted by Alterman (2014), proposed that those who are “Democratic” tended to support gun control legislation or anti-gun positions and/or perceptions.

65

12 Anti-gun 0 2

36 Neutral 18 3

14 Pro-gun 12 25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Democrat Independent Republican

Figure 9. Political differences towards the perception of firearms.

Conclusion

From the data analysis, the researcher did notice some questions did show a significant difference, but it is important to note that those significant variations should be examined with caution. In its entirety, this thesis focused on perceptions of concealed carry on campus in general and specifically, whether gender had any significant effect on one's support for concealed carry on college campuses. The next chapter will further elaborate and discuss some of the results for the data in the context of theoretical ideas within this study, and lastly, identify potential limitations this study may have.

66

Chapter 5

Discussion, Conclusion, & Recommendations

The previous chapters have introduced the topic, examined current, previous literature about the topic, the methodology in how this study was performed, and the findings and results developed from this research. This final chapter will conclude with a summary of the study along with a discussion of the findings. In addition, this section, will identify some of the limitations of the study, as well as providing some possible recommendations for future studies concerning this topic.

Summary

Crime is declining, and current survey research exploring students’ perceptions towards concealed carry on college campuses, concluded that often students believed that permitting concealed firearms on college campuses will increase homicide and suicide rates on campuses (Gius, 2018). One could say that guns have recently received a considerable amount of attention in the media and political spectrum. This infamous notoriety can often spawn new laws and regulations regarding firearms. Often these movements are impulsive reactions where policy is guided anecdotally by misinformed perceptions or intense emotions rather than empirically-driven statistics. Contemporary research regarding concealed carry on college campuses is still insufficient due to recent law changes and public opinion.

For example, within the U.S., only ten states as of 2017 have enacted legislation which allows for students, staff, and faculty to lawfully carry a concealed firearm on

67

college campuses (Gius, 2018). The dearth of previous research on this subject examining

perceptions of individuals on college campuses concealed weapons on campuses is nearly nonexistent. This researcher noticed that many of these previous studies appeared to focus on who supported concealed carry policies on college campuses. The goal of this research sought to explore a more in-depth examination of not only who supports concealed carry policies on college campuses but if perhaps one’s gender had any significant effect on said support.

The central focus of this study was to provide additional research as to whom and if one’s gender had any significant impact on their support for concealed carry policies on college campuses. To compile these data, the researcher developed a survey to evaluate a general overview of perceptions of concealed carry policies on campus and more specifically, if gender had any significant impact on one’s support for concealed carry policies on college campuses. The researcher implored a non-random, purposive, convenience sample of Criminal Justice students at California State University,

Sacramento. The survey took place during the Spring 2019 semester. The researcher analyzed the data through Excel and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.

From this analysis, the researcher found that female respondents, when compared to male respondents, were less likely to support guns on campus and felt less safe if guns were permitted on college campuses. Additionally, the results suggested that those who

68

were politically conservative or White appeared to hold a favorable perception towards

many concealed carry policies on college campuses.

Discussion

Within this research, the data analyses employed a -one-way between-subjects analyses of variance ANOVA. No significant differences were found between gender for questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 21. These results can be due to a plethora of reasons, as discussed herein.

When asking respondents how often they feared someone carrying a concealed firearm on campus, results showed that females indicated they felt fear more often compared to males. After hearing about a reported campus shooting, the results showed that females were more likely than males to feel fear about a shooting on their campus after hearing about a college shooting. Regarding safety on a college campus after hearing about a college shooting, research indicated that male participants felt safer on campus than female students did after hearing about a college shooting. The researcher used an ANOVA statistical test and from this analysis regarding “Question 10” and the results indicated that males were significantly more likely than females to indicate they would feel safe knowing anyone with a concealed weapon permit could possess a handgun while on campus if the law permitted.

When respondents were asked if they would be safer if they could lawfully carry a concealed weapon (handgun) on campus would they feel safe, the results indicated that males would feel safer than females if they were legally allowed to carry a concealed

69

handgun on campus. Further questions within the survey found that males were more

likely than females to support laws or university policies that would permit the concealed

carrying of a handgun.

As mentioned, political and racial differences were taken into account due to prior

research. Previous research noted that those students more inclined to carry a concealed

weapon were white, males, Criminal Justice students, politically conservative, students concerned about crime on campus, and those who questioned the ability of the police to

protect them (Thompson et al., 2013). The researcher sought to examine the

characteristics to observe if the results would show any significant differences. The

results in this study found that whites tend to be more favorable towards concealed carry

on college campuses compared to non-whites. When examining political differences, those who identified as Democrat were against permitting individuals who were lawfully able to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus while Republican respondents

were more prone to support permitting the carrying of a concealed weapon on a college

campus.

Results found that those who identified, as Republican appeared to be more prone

to self-identify as “Pro-gun” compared to other political backgrounds. What did surprise

the researcher was a majority of Democratic respondents or those who identified as other

for political identity, identified themselves as “Neutral” regarding guns. The researcher

speculated that they would have responded as ‘Anti-gun”, due to prior research showing that those who identified as Democrat tended to support gun control legislation or anti-

70

gun positions and/or perceptions (Alterman, 2014). Another outcome that surprised the researcher was about (34%) of those who identified as Non-white identified as “Pro- gun.”

Despite the significant results in some of the questions within the survey, further research is needed. The researcher would recommend that further studies examine broader and more diverse populations to collect rich data in order to analyze better and support the claim that gender has a significant impact on one’s support for concealed carry policies on a college campus. Because of the conflicting nature of prior literature on the subject, it is necessary for more research to be implored within this subject to support any claims or suggestions.

Limitations

All research has limitations. It is crucial for the researcher to acknowledge these limitations to inform both academics and potential readers of this research. Although these limitations usually are voluminous at a thesis stage, only selected limitations will be discussed.

The most obvious limitation was the lack of randomness in the sample. However, the lack of randomness methodological issues may be overcome with sheer numbers approaching the population and statistical comparisons to the population on relevant variables. Because the researcher sought to include the most Criminal Justice students attending classes in Spring 2019 as possible, the choice of participants was purposive and convenience sampling, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings due to

71

sampling and self-selection bias. These findings are limited to the Criminal Justice

students surveyed and should not be extrapolated to all students within the Division of

Criminal Justice (DCJ). Although precautions were taken and statistics run in an attempt

to evaluate the demographics of the entire DCJ against the sample (the sample was found to be statistically representative), it is not this researcher’s claim to generalize to the entire DCJ population.

The following limitations are selected challenges ranging from time constraints,

typos/glitches within the survey, to potential biases that Criminal Justice students may have towards the topic. Each one of these limitations will be concisely discussed as to

how the researcher perceived them to have affected the study.

Starting with time constraints, the researcher had to ensure all proper and

necessary applications were submitted in an orderly fashion to conduct this survey

research. In the researcher’s case, the Institutional Review Board Application (IRB)

needed to further to address and describe the goals and how this study was to be

conducted to receive approval from Sacramento State’s Institutional Review Board

Application (IRB) to get permission to begin contacting potential classes to survey and to

collect data.

Typos could have made questions confusing to respondents. In turn, this could

have resulted in a low response rate or potential errors in response rates. One question, in

particular, the researcher noticed was question 13. One of the answers was incorrectly

worded as “A good guy with a bad guy stops a gun” when the correct phrase was

72

supposed to be “A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.” This error had the

potential to confuse and perhaps annoy respondents who could have chosen to ignore the

question altogether. Another potential limitation within this research was a potential

glitch within the Qualtrics survey. Upon reviewing the data, there were no responses to

question 11, thereby resulting in the researcher speculating a potential glitch or error

whereby the respondents were not shown the question.

When accounting for bias, the researcher did find within the literature that

previous researchers have reported that Criminal Justice students are more prone than

other majors to hold favorable opinions towards concealed carry (Thompson et al., 2013).

Recommendations

It is vital for policymakers to comprehend both the perceptions and actual

data regarding firearms to construct policies that involve firearms on college campuses

effectively. From survey research being employed within this study, it can better gauge

the perceptions of male, and female college students hold towards concealed carry

policies on campuses. Although a small population was sampled, the researcher

suggested that further academics should explore the topic of concealed carry on college

campuses since students are likely to encounter concealed weapons while off campuses.

Furthermore, their input can better inform policymakers on campus how to enact policies

that students support.

The researcher would recommend that further research is necessary to adequately comment on and evaluate prior and recent research exploring males’ and females’

73

perceptions regarding concealed carry on college campuses. The reason why this is

recommended is that with more ample research, policymakers can more effectively enact

policies with empirical data regarding concealed carry policies on a college campus.

Furthermore, with data that are more empirical, policymakers can better base their

decisions on the findings rather than intense emotions and/or impulsive reactions.

Conclusively, prior studies examining concealed carry have contributed to its

understanding by both those affected by it whether it be students or policymakers. Future

studies within this topic from various theoretical perspectives and methods can

potentially build upon prior research and provide all stakeholders involved within these

policies sufficient empirical data to refer upon when developing policies regarding

concealed carry on a college campus. Finally, from these efforts could potentially have a

plethora of implications on the development of policy, public safety, and a better understanding of the perceptions males’ and females’ have towards concealed carry on a college campus.

74

Appendix A Carry-on Campus Survey

Q0 IMPLIED CONSENT Students’ Perceptions of Concealed Carry on College

Campuses You are invited to partake in a study, which would require you to fill out a

survey about your perceptions regarding concealed carry on college campuses. My name is Stephen Goode, and I am a Master’s student at California State University,

Sacramento, Division of Criminal Justice. The intent of this research is to understand students’ perceptions of concealed carry on college campuses. Your responses to the survey are important for this research to be conducted. If you would like to participate, you will be asked to fill out an online-based survey. Your time in this study will take roughly 15 minutes. Risks perceived with this study are not perceived to be greater than those risks encountered in day-to-day life. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right to refuse or to leave the study at any time without penalty. Any information which is obtained in connection with this study or that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Measures to ensure your confidentiality are to maintain all online-copy surveys in a secured hard drive away from public access. Data which is placed into a computer program will be kept on a password-protected computer. The data obtained will be maintained in a locked safe, for a period of three years after the study is completed. If you have any questions about the research at any time, please contact me

at [email protected] or you can contact my faculty advisor, Dr. Ryan Getty

75

[email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in a research project please call the Office of Research Affairs, California State University,

Sacramento, (916) 278-5674, or email [email protected]. Alternatively, if you experience any distress or stress, please contact the Counseling Services at Sacramento State at (916)

278-6461. By proceeding on and completing the survey, you are indicating that you have read and Comprehend the information provided above.

o Agree (2) Disagree (1) Skip To: End ofo Block If IMPLIED CONSENT Students’ Perceptions of Concealed Carry on College

Campuses You are invited... = Disagree

76

Q1 How serious is crime on your college campus o Very serious (5) o Somewhat serious (4) o Neutral (3) o Not serious (2) o Not very Serious (1) Decline to answer (99) o Q2 How effective do you perceive the Sacramento State police's (campus police) ability to protect students and visitors from on-campus crimes or incidents?

o Extremely effective (6) o Very effective (5) o Moderately effective (4) o Neutral (3) o Slightly effective (2) o Not effective at all (1) Decline to answer (99) o Q3 In one week, how often do you fear someone carrying a concealed firearm on campus?

o Often (4)

77

o Sometimes (3) o Almost never (2) o Never (1) Decline to answer (99) o Q4 In one week, how often do you fear someone using a concealed firearm on campus? o Often (4) o Sometimes (3) o Almost never (2) o Never (1) Decline to answer (99) o Q5 After you hear about a college shooting, does this provoke or increase your fear of a shooting on your campus?

o Yes it provokes fear (5) o Yes it increases fear (4) o Neutral (3) o No increase in fear (2) o Does not provoke fear (1) Decline to answer (99) o Q6 Overall, how safe do you feel being present on your college campus during the day?

78

o Very safe (6) o Somewhat safe (5) o Neutral (4) o Somewhat unsafe (3) o Very unsafe (2) o It depends (please be specific): (1) Decline to answer (99) Q7 How safeo do you feel being on campus after you hear about a college shooting?

o Very safe (5) o Somewhat safe (4) o Neutral (3) o Somewhat unsafe (2) o Very unsafe (1) Decline to answer (99) Q8 Did youo know that current California state law currently prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm on campus?

o Yes (1) No (0) Q9 Should oanyone with a concealed weapon permit, have the ability to carry around

a firearm (handgun) for self-protection on their college campuses?

79

▢ Definitely yes (5) ▢ Probably yes (4) ▢ Neutral (3) ▢ Probably not (2) ▢ Definitely not (1) I don't know (99) Q10 If the carrying▢ of a concealed weapon (handgun) was permitted by both law and the University, would you feel safe knowing anyone with a concealed weapon permit, could possess a weapon (handgun) while on campus? o Yes (1) o No (0) Decline to answer (99) Display This Question:o

If Would you carry a concealed weapon (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to? = Yes

Q11 Would you carry a concealed weapon (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to? o Yes (1) o No (0) I don't know (99) Skip To: Q13 Ifo Would you carry a concealed weapon (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to? = Yes

Skip To: Q12 If Would you carry a concealed weapon (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to? =

80

Q12 You stated you would not carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to.

What would prevent you from choosing not to?

▢ More violence will ensue (5) ▢ Suicides on campus will increase (4) ▢ There is no need for guns on campus (3) ▢ On campus police will protect us (2) ▢ Increased fear in those visiting Sacramento State (1) I don't know (99) ▢ Skip To: Q14 If You stated you would not carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to. What would

prevent... = More violence will ensue

Skip To: Q14 If You stated you would not carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to. What would

prevent... = Suicides on campus will increase

Skip To: Q14 If You stated you would not carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to. What would

prevent... = There is no need for guns on campus

Skip To: Q14 If You stated you would not carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to. What would

prevent... = On campus police will protect us

Skip To: Q14 If You stated you would not carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to. What would

prevent... = Increased fear in those visiting Sacramento State

81

Q13 You stated you would carry a (handgun) on campus if legally permitted to. What would encourage you to do so?

▢ I would feel safe (5) ▢ I have the right to defend myself (4) ▢ 2nd amendment right (3) ▢ Good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun (2) I have a concealed weapon already, and it would less to worry about ▢ (1)

I don't know (99) ▢

Q14 If you were able to legally carry a concealed weapon (handgun) on campus would you feel safer on campus?

o Definitely yes (5) o Probably yes (4) o Might or might not (3) o Probably not (2) o Definitely not (1) I don't know (99) Q15 Have youo ever handled or operated a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, or any other firearm device)?

82

o Yes (1) o No (0) o Decline to answer (99)

Skip To: Q17 If Have you ever handled or operated a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, or any other firearm

device)? = No

Skip To: Q17 If Have you ever handled or operated a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, or any other firearm

device)? = Decline to answer

83

Q16 You stated you have handled or operated a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun or any other firearm device). How often have you done so?

o Very Often (4) o Often (3) o Rarely (2) o Only once or twice (1) o Decline to answer (99)

Q17 What measures have you taken to ensure your safety on campus?

o Pepper spray (6) o Knife (5) o Whistle (4) o Taser (3) o I don't carry a weapon at all (2) o Other (1) ______

84

o Decline to answer (99) Q18 Do you think violence on college campuses like school shootings are on the rise?

o Definitely yes (5) o Probably yes (4) o Maybe (3) o Probably not (2) o Definitely not (1) Q19 What is your opinion on gun laws in California?

o Too strict (5) o Somewhat strict (4) o Fair (3) o Somewhat lenient (2) o Too lenient (1) o I don't know (99)

85

Q20 Check all that could apply to your opinion to the question. Guns should not be allowed on campus because ______

▢ Fear by students and staff (8)

▢ Students don't need guns on campus (7)

▢ More violence will ensue (6)

▢ Police will protect from threats (5)

▢ More suicides could be prone (4)

▢ Gun violence will increase on campus (3)

▢ Do not support guns on campus (2)

▢ Other (1) Q21 Do you think guns should be banned?

o Yes (1) o No (0) o I don't know (99)

86

Q22 I would best describe myself as

o Pro-gun (3) o Neutral (2) o Anti-gun (1) Q23 Would you say Sacramento State is a supportive (agrees to permit students to legally carry a concealed handgun) environment for the concealed carrying of a firearm

(handgun)?

o Yes (1) o No (0) Q24 Do you support laws or university policies that would allow for the concealed carry of a weapon (handgun) on campus?

o Strongly support (5) o Support (4) o Neutral (3) o Disagree (2) o Strongly disagree (1)

87

Q25 How often do you read or hear about incidents of violence on college campuses?

o Very often (5) o Often (4) o Neutral (3) o Rarely (2) o Very rare (1) Q26 What reasons listed below represent why you may support concealed carry on college campuses (Check all that apply)

▢ Right to defend oneself (7)

▢ Feel safer (6)

▢ 2nd Amendment right (5)

▢ Good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun (4)

▢ I have a concealed carry permit (3)

▢ Do not support (2)

88

▢ Other please specify (1) Q27 Do you live on campus? o Yes (1) o No (0) o Decline to answer (99) Q28 My age in years is

Q29 What is your sex?

o Male (1) o Female (0) o Decline to answer (99) Q30 Choose one category you consider yourself to be:

▢ White (6)

▢ Black or African American (5)

▢ American Indian or Alaska Native (4)

▢ Asian (3)

89

▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (2)

▢ Other (1) Q31 Have you ever served on active duty in the US Armed Forces?

o Yes (1) o No (0) Q32 Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or something else?

o Republican (1) o Democrat (2) o Independent (3) o Other (4) ______o Decline to answer (99) Q33 Where do you obtain your source of news/media entertainment?

▢ CNN (1)

▢ FOX (2)

90

▢ VICE (3)

▢ Social media (4)

▢ Friends and family (5)

▢ Other (6)

▢ Decline to answer (99) Q34 I am classified as a:

o First-year student (1) o Second-year student (2) o Third-year student (3) o Fourth-year student (4) o Fifth-year student (5) o Sixth-year student or more (6) Q35 My major is:

o Criminal justice (1)

91

o Communications (2) o Other please specify (3) ___

92

References

Alterman, E. (2014). The trouble with Democrats. The Nation, 299(26), 6.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the

inner city. New York, NY: Norton.

Anonymous. (1986). Wright, James D. and Peter H. Rossi, authors. Armed And

Considered Dangerous: A Survey Of Felons And Their Firearms. Journal of

Criminal Law & Criminology, 77(2), 504-506.

Barati, M. (2016). New evidence on the impact of concealed carry weapon laws on crime.

International Review of Law & Economics, 47, 76-83.

Batey, R. (1986). Strict Construction of firearms offenses: The Supreme Court and the

gun control act of 1968. Law and Contemporary Problems, 49(1), 163-198.

Bonanno, C., & Levenson, R. (2014). School Shooters: History, Current Theoretical and

Empirical Findings, and Strategies for Prevention. SAGE Open, 4(1).

Bushman, B., Lankford, A., & Madfis, E. (2018). Narcissism, fame seeking, and mass

shootings. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(2), 229-241.

California State University, Sacramento. (2019). Class search/Browse catalog. Retrieved

from https://cmsweb.cms.csus.edu

Cook, P., Ludwig, J., Venkatesh, S., & Braga, A. (2007). Underground gun markets.

Economic Journal, 117(524), F588-F618.

Cook, P., Molliconi, S., & Cole, T. (1995). Regulating Gun Markets. The Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 86(1), 59-92.

93

Cook, P., Cukier, W., Krause, K., Sheptycki, J., & Edwards, A. (2009). The illicit

firearms trade in North America. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 9(3), 265-286.

Cook, P., & Goss, K. (2014). The gun debate: What everyone needs to know. New York,

NY Oxford University Press. Book.

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities

approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.

Collins, V., Farrell, A., Mckee, J., Martin, F., & Monk-Turner, E. (2011). The state of

coverage: The media’s representation of international issues and state crime.

International Criminal Justice Review, 21(1), 5-21.

Chappell, D. (2014). Firearms regulation, violence and the mentally ill: A contemporary

antipodean appraisal. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(4), 399-

408.

CRKBA Supports Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. (2015).

Professional Services Close-Up. Feb 26, 2015.

DeFrances, C., & Smith, S. (1994). Federal-state relations in gun control: The 1993

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Publius, 24(3), 69.

Doubleday, J. (2013). Students oppose concealed-carry gun policy on campuses, survey

finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 60(03).

Domenech, B. (2013). The truth about mass shootings and gun control. Commentary,

135(2), 25-29.

94

Donohue, J. J. (2003). The impact of concealed-carry laws. In J. Ludwig & P. J. Cook

(Eds.), Evaluating gun policy: Effects on crime and violence (pp. 287 - 324).

Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Dube, A., Dube, O., & Garcãa-Ponce, O. (2013). Cross-Border spillover: U.S. gun laws

and violence in Mexico. The American Political Science Review, 107(3), 397-417.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2018). Active Shooter incidents in the United States in

2016 and 2017. (April, 2018).Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/file-

repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf.

Fennell, R. (2009). Concealed Carry Weapon Permits: A Second Amendment Right or a

Recipe for Disaster on Our Nation's Campuses? Journal of American College

Health, 58(2), 99-100.

Fryrear, A. (July 27, 2015). What's a good survey response rate? Retrieved April 1, 2019,

from https://www.surveygizmo.com/resources/blog/survey-response-rates/

Gius, M. (2014). The impact of state and federal assault weapons bans on public mass

shootings. Applied Economics Letters, 22(4), 1-4.

Gius, M. (2018). Campus crime and concealed carry laws: Is arming students the answer?

The Social Science Journal, 56(1).

Hemenway, D., & Solnick, S. (2015). The epidemiology of self-defense gun use:

Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011. Preventive

Medicine, 79, 22-27.

95

Helsley, R., & O’Sullivan, A. (2001). Stolen Gun Control. Journal of Urban Economics,

50(3), 436-447.

History of gun-control legislation. (2012). Retrieved April 23, 2019, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com

Holkeri, E., Oksanen, A., & Räsänen, P. (2015). Crime and context. European Journal on

Criminal Policy and Research, 21(3), 407-423.

Jacobs, J., & Potter, K. (1995). Keeping Guns out of the "Wrong" Hands: The Brady Law

and the Limits of Regulation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

(1973-), 86(1), 93-120.

Jang, H., Dierenfeldt, R., & Lee, C. (2014). Who wants to allow concealed weapons on

the college campus? Security Journal, 27(3), 304-319.

Kahane, L. (2013). Understanding the interstate export of crime guns: A gravity model

approach. Contemporary Economic Policy, 31(3), 618-634.

Kates, D., & Mauser, G. (2007). Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A

review of international and some domestic evidence. Harvard Journal of Law &

Public Policy, 30(2), 649-694.

Kcpq-TV. (2018). Gun stores see increase in sales of semi-automatic after I-1639

passes. TCA Regional News, p. TCA Regional News, Nov 20, 2018.

Kelderman, E. & Lipka, S. (2008). Supreme Court strikes down a gun ban and raises

questions for college campuses. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(44), 1.

96

Kleck, G., & Patterson, E. (1993). The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels

on violence rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(3), 249-287.

Kleck, G. (1996). Crime, culture conflict and the sources of support for gun control: A

multilevel application of the general social surveys. The American Behavioral

Scientist, 39(4), 387-404.

Kleck, G., Kovandzic, T., & Bellows, J. (2016). Does gun control reduce violent crime?

Criminal Justice Review, 41(4), 488-513.

Kleck, G. (2015). The impact of gun ownership rates on crime rates: A methodological

review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 40-48.

Knight, B. (2013). State gun policy and Cross-State Externalities: Evidence from crime

gun tracing. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(4), 200-229.

Kopel, D. (Oct 9, 2017). Are there really 'more mass shootings than days in the year'?

Wall Street Journal.

Koper, C., & Roth, S. (2001). The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on

gun violence outcomes: An assessment of multiple outcome measures and some

lessons for policy evaluation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(1), 33-74.

Koper, C., & Mayo-Wilson, S. (2006). Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: A

systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of Experimental

Criminology, 2(2), 227-261.

Krivo, L. (2014). Placing the crime decline in context: A comment on Baumer and Wolff.

Justice Quarterly, 31(1), 39-42.

97

Latzer, B. (2016). The rise and fall of violent crime in America. New York, NY:

Encounter Books

Leff, C., & Leff, H. (1981). The politics of ineffectiveness: Federal firearms legislation,

1919-38. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

455(1), 48-62.

Littman, M. (2011). In Goldman guns trust. ABA Journal, 97(2), 12.

Lyons, C. (2017). The issues (Guns on campus). CQ Researcher, 27(4), 75.

Mantel, B. (2013). Background-check system has serious gaps. (National instant criminal

background check system)(Gun control). CQ Researcher, 23(10), 244.

McDougal, T., Shirk, D., Muggah, R., & Patterson, J. (2015). The way of the gun:

Estimating firearms trafficking across the US–Mexico Border. Journal of

Economic Geography, 15(2), 297-327.

Mcneeley, S., & Yuan, Y. (2017). A multilevel examination of the Code of the Street’s

relationship with fear of crime. Crime & Delinquency, 63(9), 1146-1167.

Mcphedran, S. (2013). More guns ... more or less crime? an Australian perspective on an

international question. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 15(2), 127-133.

Meyers, L., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. (2013). Performing data analysis using IBM SPSS.

Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Metzl, J., & Macleish, K. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of

American firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), 240-9.

98

Mikhail, S. A. (1996). Reversing the tide under the commerce clause. Journal of

Criminal Law & Criminology, 86(4), 1493-1538.

Moody, C., & Marvell, T. (2008). The debate on shall-issue laws. Econ Journal Watch,

5(3), 269-293.

Moorhouse, J. C., & Wanner, B. (2006). Does gun control reduce crime or does crime

increase gun control? CATO Journal, 26(1), 103-124.

O'Rourke, M. (2013). Reacting to a violent world. Risk Management, 60(5), 3.

Palazzolo, J., & Bialik, C. (2012, December 21). Lack of data slows studies of gun

control and crime. Wall Street Journal.

Paxson, M. (1995). Increasing survey response rates: Practical instructions from the total-

design method. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(4),

66-73.

Petranek, S. (2012). Al Capone's 1928 Gangster Cadillac. American History, 46(6), 23.

Porta, M., & Last, J. M. (2018). A dictionary of public health (2 ed.). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Reyns, B. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding

routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216-238.

Rios, V., & Ferguson, C. (2019). News media coverage of crime and violent drug crime:

A case for cause or catalyst? Justice Quarterly, 1-27.

99

Rogers, M., Lara Ovares, E., Ogunleye, O., Twyman, T., Akkus, C., Patel, K., &

Fadlalla, M. (2018). Is Arming Teachers Our Nation's Best Response to Gun

Violence? The Perspective of Public Health Students. American Journal of Public

Health, 108(7), 862-863.

Rosenfeld, R., Deckard, M., & Blackburn, E. (2014). The effects of directed patrol and

self-initiated enforcement on firearms violence: A randomized controlled study of

hot spot policing. Criminology, 52(3), 428-449.

Rosenfeld, R., & Fornango, R. (2017). The relationship between crime and stop,

question, and frisk rates in New York City neighborhoods. Justice Quarterly,

34(6), 931-951.

Sacramento State. (2019, March 2). Retrieved March 13, 2019, from

https://www.csus.edu/oir/datacenter/

Samuels, D. (2015). Wrong on gun rights: 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller. The

Nation, 301(15), 17.

Saunders, B., Kelly, A., Cohen, E., & Guarino, N. (2016). Right-wing authoritarianism

and social dominance orientation indirectly predict support for New York City’s

stop-&-frisk policy through prejudice. Current Psychology, 35(1), 92-98.

Schwaner, S., Furr, A., Negrey, C., & Seger, R. (1999). Who wants a gun license?

Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(1), 1-10.

Schwartz, E. (2007). Harder to follow the guns; Local police say a law hinders probes.

U.S. News & World Report, 143(3), 30.

100

Sevenans, J. (2018). How mass media attract political elites’ attention. European Journal

of Political Research, 57(1), 153-170.

Southwick, L. (1997). Do guns cause crime? Does crime cause guns? A granger test.

Atlantic Economic Journal, 25(3), 256-273.

Stroebe, W. (2016). Firearm availability and violent death: The need for a culture change

in attitudes toward guns. Analyses Of Social Issues And Public Policy, 16(1), 7-

35.

Thompson, A., Price, J., Dake, J., Teeple, K., Bassler, S., Khubchandani, J., & Stratton,

C. (2013). Student perceptions and practices regarding carrying concealed

handguns on university campuses. Journal of American College Health, 61(5),

243-253.

Tucker, J., Stoutenborough, J., & Beverlin, R. (2012). Geographic proximity in the

diffusion of concealed weapons permit laws. Politics & Policy, 40(6), 1081-1105.

USAcarry.com. (2016). Concealed carry permit reciprocity maps. Retrieved from

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Vizzard, W. (2015). The current and future state of gun policy in the United States.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104(4), 879-904.

Wells, W., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, J. (2012). The effects of gun possession arrests made by a

proactive police patrol unit. Policing: An International Journal of Police

Strategies & Management, 35(2), 253-271.

101

Wertz, J., Azrael, D., Hemenway, D., Sorenson, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Differences

between new and long-standing US gun owners: Results from a national survey.

American Journal of Public Health, 108(7), 871-877.

Winkler, Adam. (2009). Heller's Catch-22. (Symposium: The Second Amendment and

the Right to bear arms after D.C. v. Heller). UCLA Law Review, 56(5), 1551-

1577.

Wintemute, G. (2007). Gun shows across a multistate American gun market:

Observational evidence of the effects of regulatory policies. Injury Prevention,

13(3), 150-155.

Wiseman, R. (2012). Campaign for right to carry concealed guns on campuses gains

traction. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review,

77(7), 53-56.

Worsnop, R. L. (1994). Gun control. CQ Researcher, 4, 505-528.

Wright, J. (1995). Ten essential observations on guns in America. Society, 32, 63-68.

Wyant, B., Taylor, R., Ratcliffe, J., & Wood, J. (2012). Deterrence, firearm arrests, and

subsequent shootings: A micro-level spatio-temporal analysis. Justice Quarterly,

29(4), 524-545.