INTS3300 Relevant Artifact - Turnbow_3300_L8-RP

Running Head: PERCEIVED FEAR OF CAMPUS CARRY AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ON
A UNIVERSITY 1
INTS3300 Relevant Artifact
I have included this artifact because it showcases my ability to conduct research. This artifact is
relevant to my future plans for a few reasons. The artifact illustrates that I can research a topic
whether it be a problem in need of a solution or an issue that needs further investigation. This.
The artifact is also a testament that I am proficient in written communication as is needed in
most any career. I can take a topic and effectively communicate the intended information.

PERCEIVED FEAR OF CAMPUS CARRY AND ECONOMIC INPACT ON A UNIVERSITY 2
Perceived Fear of Campus Carry and Economic Impact on a University
Paige Turnbow
INTS 3300-D01
Dr. Gail Bentley
Texas Tech University

Abstract
The Second Amendment iterates that the people of America have the right to keep and bear
arms. The 84th Texas legislature recently passed Senate Bill 11 which will take effect August 1,
2016. This bill essentially allows concealed carry on university campuses by those who are of
legal age and have legally obtained a concealed carry permit. As there is little empirical data
which exemplifies the results of handguns on campus and whether this contributes to or
discourages more violence, this article will address the perceived fear of handguns on university
campuses in association to the introduction of campus carry and the potential economic impact to
the university and surrounding community. In continuum, this paper will quantify and qualify
who and why there is a perceived fear, and offer insights to alleviate the fear so the university
maintains economic stability, credibility, and no harm is done to the facilities reputation. The
criterion used for the research chosen was scholarly peer reviewed articles from university
databases, focusing on perceived fear and economics in relation to campus carry, consisting of
both qualitative and quantitative research methods. The results of the research concluded that
fear of campus carry has the potential to be detrimental to the fiscal standing of the university
and surrounding community and the reputation of the institution.

This paper is an interdisciplinary research project examining campus carry utilizing
Repko’s 10 step process. Campus carry is a suggested solution to violence on college campuses.
There is little doubt that there is a continual societal phenomenon in the increased violence on
college campuses throughout the United States. This violence is perpetuated not by a single
entity or by a single weapon of choice. Not only is the campus community affected by this
violence, the community surrounding the campus is also affected. The victims range from
college students, to university employees, to individuals on campus in the path of violence.
Carrying a weapon in public, with the proper qualifications, is accepted in most locations.
Carrying a weapon on most college campuses is illegal, with the exception of those states which
passed a law similar to Texas’ State Bill 11. The question of whether implementing a campus
carry law would save lives during a violent altercation, is a question that needs to be addressed.
A study of the economic benefits or liabilities to the campus community and general community
will be beneficial in addressing the issue. If applications to the college decline or increase,
resulting in a decline or increase in attendance, the economic situation of the college and
surrounding community will be affected. College and community leaders will need to review this
potential impact. An interdisciplinary approach to campus carry is necessary as this is a complex
problem that no single disciple has been able to address.
People perceive allowing firearms on campus will make universities more dangerous and
further susceptible to violence. How can the perception of increased violence on campus be
adjusted as to not economically impact the status of the university and campus community?
Retail management will view the economics of enrollment at universities once campus carry is
implemented. Organizational leadership will look at campus carry from the perspective of easing
the fear of students, parents, faculty, and administrators, prior to and once the law is enacted. The

two disciplines will integrate their perspectives to ease the fears and negative perceptions of the
campus carry laws to maintain healthy enrollment numbers and financial strength of the
university.
STEP 1: State the Focus of Your Paper
It is a tragedy that shootings occur on college campuses and there is an immediate need to
find solutions to prevent future incidents. It is reasonably acceptable to assume that students,
faculty, employees, and visitors to a college campus should feel a sense of safety while on school
grounds. Those intrinsically involved in this issue have not been able to agree on how to mitigate
violence, therefore the need to approach this problem not from a single discipline, but by using
an interdisciplinary approach is necessary. The direction of focus and how the issue of campus
carry is addressed will have an economic impact, positive or negative, on college campuses and
the surrounding community, as people perceive allowing firearms on campus will make
universities more dangerous and further susceptible to violence. How can the perception of
increased violence on campus be adjusted as to not economically impact the status of the
university and campus community?
STEP 2: Justify Using an Interdisciplinary Approach
The criteria used to justify using an interdisciplinary approach as stated by Repko (2014),
includes “the problem or question must be complex, insights or theories of the problem are
offered by two or more disciplines, no single discipline has been able to address the problem
comprehensively to resolve it, and the problem is an unresolved societal need or issue” (p. 84).
There are innumerable disciplines who have analyzed the issue of campus carry and the effects
to the campus community based on disciplinary perspectives. Although endless research has

been conducted by a multitude of disciplines on solving this issue, it is decidedly so complex not
a single discipline can comprehensively understand and therefore create solutions. Developing
appropriate plans and options to ease the fear resulting from the campus carry law is a task
oriented to the concentration of organizational leadership. Retail management will additionally
address the fiscal stability of the institution, in regards to enrollment and employee retention.
There is a tremendous need for resolution to this issue as more states are passing laws to enact
campus carry.
STEP 3: Identify Relevant Disciplines
Repko states (2012), “in selecting disciplines from which to draw insights and
theories, the challenge is to decide which disciplines contribute substantially to the problem or
overall pattern of behavior one wishes to study” (p. 143). There are in an inordinate amount of
disciplines, interdisciplines, and applied fields which can contribute to this wicked topic of
campus carry. Criminal justice will review based on law enforcement in accordance to campus
carry regulations. History will take the perspective of past occurrences, to include both mass
shootings and single person incidents. Psychology will look at the perpetrator of firearm violence
as to their psychological state of mind at the time of the incident as well as their past stability.
According to Repko (2012), the most relevant disciplines are “directly related to the
problem, have generated the most important research, and advanced the most compelling
theories to explain it” (p. 159). More specifically Repko states (2012), “these disciplines, or parts
of them, provide information about the problem that is essential to developing a comprehensive
understanding of it” (p. 159). For this paper, retail management will view this wicked problem
from an economic perspective and the study of market interaction (Repko, 2012, p. 103).

Organizational leadership will view this from a sociological perspective focusing on those in
various bureaucracies and with vested interest within the leadership of the college and local
community to analyze the perceived fear.
STEP 4: Conduct a Literature Search
Retail management will examine the economics of allowing firearms to be carried on
college campuses, which not only have an effect on the campus community, but also to the
general community and the sum of the individuals. Retail management will examine the potential
for economic loss due to lack of retention of employees. The Dean of the Architecture School at
The University of Texas resigned due to Senate Bill 11 being signed into law (Lopez, 2015).
Recruiting fees to replace the dean will cost the university tens of thousands of dollars and
possibly harm the schools reputation, if further faculty resigns. The Economics Department at
the University of Texas at Austin remarked that they recognize the law will affect their ability to
recruit and retain first level faculty and students to the university (Khubchandani, J., Dake, J.,
Payton, E., & Teeple, K., 2014). How will this affect the individuals working in an environment
which authorizes campus carry? People are fearful of guns in the workplace as there were a total
of 8,666 occupational homicides between 1997 and 2010 (Martin, W., LaVan, H., Lopez, Y.,
Naquin, C., & Katz, M., 2014). Will the general community and the college community be
affected economically once campus carry is implemented? How will increased or decreased sales
of firearms, the associated supplies and firearms training impact the economic position of the
campus and general community?
Organizational leadership will need to focus efforts on easing the fear of students,
parents, faculty, and administrators, once the law is enacted. How can the college and

community leaders implement the campus carry policy without doing fiscal harm? The two
disciplines will integrate their perspectives to ease the fears and negative perceptions relating to
the campus carry laws to maintain healthy enrollment numbers and financial strength of the
university.
STEP 5: Develop Adequacy in Each Relevant Discipline
As explained by Repko (2012), “in interdisciplinary work, developing adequacy in
relevant disciplines generally involves identifying relevant theories” (p. 198). It is essential to
have an adequate understanding of the disciplines theories to be able to address the problem in
accordance to the disciplinary perspectives. There is not a need to be an expert in disciplinary
theories however a strong understanding of the theories is necessary in order to determine a
solution to the given problem.
Organizational Leadership has the perspective that individuals exist as separate entities
with their own individualized perceptions to the problem of campus carry. The perspective
carries over to the economic impact of those individualized perceptions which is only a sum of
its parts as described by the functional theory. Organizational leadership takes both a qualitative
and quantitative approach to research. The quantitative action explains statistical data of who
perceives campus violence will increase with the implementation of campus carry. The
qualitative method will shed insight on personal impressions of the individual via interviews, as
well as observations and experiences of the participants.
Retail management also utilizes both qualitative and quantitative theories. The
quantitative method helps to analyze the financial impact via statistical analysis and
mathematical modeling. This will be in association with student enrollment (gains or losses) and

the retention or cost to replace faculty and staff who may resign due to the implementation of the
law. Qualitatively, retail management will examine employee and student attitudes towards guns
on campus and “how” that affects their attitude towards the university. Strategic management
theory assists retail management in the scope of implementing major goals to provide direction
in all aspects of building and maintaining a sound institution.
STEP 6: Analyze the Problem and Evaluate Each Insight or Theory
According to Repko (2012), “analyzing the problem requires viewing it through the lens
of each disciplinary perspective primarily in terms of its insights and theories” (p. 226). It is
essential to review the insights of each discipline individually to reveal the synthesis between
them for complete integration towards the problem.
Discipline, Interdiscipline, and Applied
Field
Perspective Stated in Terms of an
Overarching Question AskedAbout
Campus Carry
Retail Management How will campus carry impact enrollment,
employee retention, and the finances of the
university and community?
Organizational Leadership What should be the role of leaders on campus
to reduce the fear and perception that violence
will increase once the campus carry law is
implemented?
The insights of retail management
The perception among students, parents, faculty, and administrators is that campus
violence will increase once the campus carry law has been implemented. There is not one
particular insight which causes this perception, rather many factors are involved. The economic
impact to the university and surrounding community could be detrimental should these
perceptions not be addressed. There is concern that recruitment and retention of faculty and

students will be an issue once campus carry is in effect. The University of Texas at Austin has
already felt the impact with the resignation of a microeconomics professor. UT Austin’s Moody
College of Communications also lost a dean candidate due to his concern for guns on campus.
The economic impact, it is feared will not only be financial, but there is also a fear that the
reputation of the institution will be impacted (Auyero, 2015).
The research indicates the opposition to firearms on campus, which has the potential to
harm faculty retention and student enrollment. Khubchandani, Dake, Payton, and Teeple (2014),
examined two studies which were conducted involving 15 universities in the Midwest. The
studies were intended to determine the opinions of campus carry. It was concluded in the studies
that 94% of faculty and 79% of undergraduates were opposed to firearms on campus. A survey at
a university in California resulted in 72% of the students were opposed to qualified faculty and
students carrying guns on campus. Khubchandani, Dake, Payton, and Teeple, surveyed
university presidents and determined 95% of those surveyed were opposed to guns on campus
and 69% were opposed to guns off campus. University presidents perceived that neither faculty
nor students would feel safer with firearms on campus. The presidents also perceived that
financial resources would become scarce if campus carry were implemented. This data was
collected using a 3-wave mailing process to ensure the response rate was adequate. The number
of reliable questionnaires was 46% above that which was needed.
The perception is not affected by how well trained those who carry are, but by the
presence and availability of guns. It could be as simple as where there are more guns there is
more violence. The perception is that guns can be obtained legally or illegally and used in a
violent attack on campus. According to Cook and Ludwig (2006), homicide rates are
exponentially higher when gun ownership is prevalent. This could partially be due to theft and/or

unauthorized sales. Cook and Ludwig’s research was based on the 200 largest counties in the
United States. Data was collected from the Vital Statistics Program as pertaining to homicides
and suicides over a twenty year period. The research has shown, according to Cook and Ludwig,
that there was an average of 11 homicides per every 100,000 residents during the study period
and half of all suicides were committed by the use of a firearm. The data suggests that gun
prevalence is associated with an increase in homicides and suicides. It is determined, however,
that gun prevalence is not associated with assaults or other crimes. Cook concluded that gun
prevalence increases lethal violence.
The stated perception also stems from social problems associated with campus carry.
Universities are a forum for free exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Universities are an
environment for students to grow and mature both socially and academically. As the majority of
the population prefers university campuses to be a gun free zone, the fear is that the
implementation of this law will inhibit recruitment and retention of the best students.
Universities contain a segment of the population who are at an increased risk of injury rather it is
violent or accidental. According to Smith (2012), one study reveals a correlation between gun
ownership at college and students overindulging in dangerous and harmful activities such as
drinking and driving. Students are of the demographic who are at a higher risk of harm due to
several factors. The factors that lead to students taking more risk include that they are usually not
married or in a committed relationship and they are living away from parental guidance for the
first time. This fact was reiterated by the Chief of police at the University of Arizona during
testimony (Smith, 2012). Also revealed by Smith, a Virginia circuit court judge stated during a
ruling that guns on a university campus will only create an unsafe environment for the students
and faculty.

Gun rights are not issues of concern regarding the implementation of campus carry. It is
however, important to the in depth understanding of perceived attitudes to iterate that The Pew
Research Center according to Bartula and Bowen (2015) determined for the first time in twenty
years there is more support for gun rights than gun control. In 2013 there were nineteen states
which introduced some form of campus carry legislation. Although support for gun rights has
increased, this does not mirror the opinion of those surveyed regarding handguns on campus.
Bartula and Bowen conducted an electronic survey of Texas universities and concluded from
returned data that an overwhelming majority, 91.5% of respondents, were opposed to campus
carry. In conjunction with The Pew Research findings, support or opposition is greatly decided
by political views and current status of gun ownership. According to Bennett (2011), researchers
have recently started to undertake empirical studies focusing on university faculty and students
related to a variety of issues in regards to firearms on campus. Bennett determined through
opinion surveys that the vast majority of university faculty is opposed to gun law and campus
carry legislation and it was also concluded that 72.4% of faculty are opposed to guns on
university campuses.
The overall perception of students, parents, faculty and administration is that more guns
equate more violence. The socialization, demographics, and maturity level of college students
are a perceived concern. The perception is that fear of violence due to the campus carry law
being implemented will have an economic impact to the university as well as an impact to the
reputation of said institution.

The insights of organizational leadership
Leaders of the university need to assess the perceived fear of faculty, administrators,
parents, and students concerning the fast approaching implementation of campus carry in Texas.
Leaders can address fears by opening dialogue as to informational statistics on crime data in
relation to firearms and technological efforts available to help quell the fears. According to
Sulkowski and Lazarus (2011), review efforts to increase the availability of crime data to
students and parents, utilize security technologies on campus, allow members of campus
communities to carry concealed weapons, use criminal or potential shooter profiling, employ
threat assessment techniques, and implement emergency response plans to address attacks.
Limited or no empirical support exists for efforts to increase the availability of data on campus
crime, allow concealed weapons carriers on campus, increase security technologies on campus,
and use criminal profiling techniques to identify threatening students. However, support exists
for threat assessment procedures, strategies to increase threat reporting, and for emergency
management plans. Although it is impossible to rid colleges completely of violence, this review
underscores the importance of encouraging all members of the college community to commit to
supporting safe, free, and open college communities.
The perceived fear of firearms on campus encompasses all quadrants of the community.
The question lies in whether the advantages of allowing firearms on campus outweigh the
disadvantages. Thompson, Price, Dake, and Stratton (2013), conducted a multisite study to
assess college student's perceptions and practices regarding carrying concealed handguns on
campus. The participants, undergraduate students from 15 public mid-western universities were
surveyed (N = 1,800). The method, faculty members distributed the questionnaire to students in
general education classes or classes broadly representative of undergraduate students. The

results, useable questionnaires were returned by 1,649 students (92%). The majority (78%) of
students was not supportive of concealed handguns on campuses, and 78% claimed that they
would not obtain a permit to carry a handgun on campus, if it were legal. Those who perceived
more disadvantages to carrying handguns on campus were females, who did not own firearms,
did not have a firearm in the home growing up, and were not concerned with becoming a victim
of crime. It was concluded that the majority of students was not supportive of concealed
handguns on campus and claimed that they would not feel safer if students and faculty carried
concealed handguns.
One of the thoughts behind campus carry is that an increased presence of firearms on
campus will deter gun violence. The determination will be if those who have a concealed permit
and are carrying a weapon will have opportunity and location to thwart a potential attack.
According to Bouffard, Nobles, Wells, and Cavanaugh (2012,) among other arguments,
advocates for lifting bans on carrying concealed handguns on campus propose that this would
increase the prevalence of legitimately carried handguns, which might then deter crimes or be
used to intervene in campus shooting incidents like the one that took place at Virginia Tech in
2007. Opponents suggest that increased prevalence of concealed handguns would lead to
increases in other negative consequences, such as accidental shootings. Little empirical research
has not examined the potential outcomes of such a policy change, nor has existing research
examined the prerequisite issue of whether lifting these bans would result in substantial increases
in the prevalence of concealed handguns among students. Using a sample of undergraduate
classrooms selected from five academic buildings at a public university in Texas, the study
examines the potential impact of lifting the concealed handgun ban on the likelihood that a given
classroom would contain at least one legally carried handgun. Results reveal that the impact of

potential policy changes in this area vary based on the building under consideration and the
measure of potential handgun prevalence.
It is a constitutional right for citizens of the United States to bear arms for safety. The
legislature in Texas has passed the campus carry law which will soon be implemented, in
accordance with the constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who disagree with allowing
firearms on campus have not been supported as the law states bearing arms is legal and
constitutional. According to Cunningham (2012), prior to the shootings on the campus of
Virginia Tech in 2007, the vast majority of college and university campuses banned weapons on
their grounds. After Virginia Tech, others also sought to ban guns, but were met with resistance
from guns rights advocates, and those efforts to ban guns failed. Two recent decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court apply the Second Amendment's right to bear arms to individual citizens (rather
than those who are part of state militias) for protection or other legal uses. The Supreme Court
ruled that guns could be regulated, but to ban them would be unconstitutional. However, one of
those decisions noted that schools and government buildings are "sensitive places," where a ban
on weapons might be constitutional. Gun rights advocates currently oppose any effort to ban
weapons from campuses. During this legislative year, bills were introduced into the legislative
bodies of 16 states with the goal of authorizing guns on campus, or proactively preventing
colleges and universities from banning guns on campus.
STEP 7: Identifying Conflicts Between Insights
According to Repko (2012), “the immediate challenge for interdisciplinarians is to
identify conflicts between disciplinary insights concerning the problem” (p. 293). Repko also
states (2012), “this is necessary because these conflicts stand in the way of creating common

ground and thus, of achieving integration” (p. 294). Conflicts can arise within the same
discipline or between individual disciplines. Possible sources of conflict can occur due to
disciplinary assumptions, concepts, and theories. A source of conflict regarding perceived fear
and the economics of campus carry and how it impacts the campus community can arise when
there are differing contextual meanings for the same concept.
One source of conflict between the disciplines which resides in the vocabulary is the
meaning of the word “fear” which is viewed differently by the individual disciplines. Retail
management has an economic fear; the fear of declining revenue. Organizational leadership
views fear on a sociological level, fear of physical danger and increased violence. Another
source of conflict is in the contextual meaning of “economic impact” or “economics”.
Organizational leadership views economic impact in relation to employee retention due to
perceived fear of guns on campus and institutional reputation. An assumption of organizational
leadership is that individuals are primarily motivated by a desire to achieve a higher social status
therefore employee retention is impacted if the reputation of the university declines. Retail
management, in contrast, will view economics as dollars being received into the university; the
financial impact due to student enrollment. The assumption of retail management is that in which
value is implicit during times of scarcity.
STEP 8: Create Common Ground
As campus carry is implemented it is the perceived fear of guns on campus which has the
potential to result in an economic impact to the campus community. The disciplines relevant to
this issue being organizational leadership and retail management. The main source of conflict
arises in the concept and interpretation of vocabulary, specifically “fear” and “economic

impact”. Common ground can be created by redefining the concept of these words. According to
Repko (2012), redefinition is defined as a “technique that involves modifying or redefining
concepts in different texts and contexts to bring out a common meaning” (p. 472).
The redefinition of fear will ensure all entities understand that fear encompasses many
forms, including physical, mental, emotional, and financial. Redefinition will also bridge the
concept of money in/money out and the capital expenditure of retaining employees, student
enrollment, and institutional reputation. In essence, the concept is the same the linguistics is
where the problem lies. The ideal outcome for both disciplines is being free of fear while
retaining employees resulting in less expenditure and maintaining high enrollment resulting in
increased revenue. The technique of transformation can also be utilized to create common
ground by examining the economics as a rational human experience versus the irrational
sociological perception of human fear.
STEP 9: Construct a More Comprehensive Understanding
It is imperative to create common ground between the chosen disciplines, to move
forward and complete the integration of conflicting insights, and finally to construe a more
comprehensive understanding. Strategic management theory as applied to campus carry provides
the necessary insights to create synthesis between the disciplines and complete the process of
integration. Strategic management theory involves the formulation and implementation of the
major goals and initiatives taken by entity leaders and provides overall direction to the enterprise
in all aspects of operation. This necessitates the university and community leaders to review,
create, examine and implement plans to abate fear while ensuring economic prosperity.

Functionalist theory explains that society is a system of interconnected parts that work
together to maintain balance and equilibrium for the whole, as society is more than the sum of its
parts. Leaders need to continually unify and reinforce the concept of community which will
create security and camaraderie among the campus and surrounding community. The research
tends to focus on the impact of the sociological fear of guns on campus and did not fully account
for how this fear is interconnected with university revenue, student enrollment, faculty retention,
and university reputation. A discussion and review of knowledge gained during the research
process and with the incorporation of the strategic management theory supported by the
functionalist theory will lead to further insight on how a campus community is and needs to
remain interconnected.
STEP 10: Communicating the Results
Viewing this wicked problem via the stated disciplines is essential to both the university
and surrounding community. Research shows that there is a perceived fear of handguns on
campus. If the campus community is fearful due to an increased presence of firearms on campus,
research has indicated the retention of faculty and employees could be impaired; without quality
faculty, there is an inherent possibility the reputation of the university will diminish, creating a
decline in enrollment, which affects the financial soundness of the university and the surrounding
community. In a college town, the university nominally employs a vast majority of the
population. Should the perceived fear cause enrollment to decline, there is potential for the
number of university employees to decline, there will be less disposable income in the
community, leading to less money spent, and a possible recession in the community.

It is imperative to comprehend this new perspective to preserve universities as reputable
entities of higher education. It is proposed that the wicked problem of campus carry needs to be
analyzed from the perspective of the economic impact as redefined in creating common ground.
One of the most prominent areas retail management and organizational leadership can facilitate
cognitive advancement is through new insights of addressing fear. There are steps that can be
taken to facilitate decreased fear, such as utilization of the campus mental health services,
comprehensive communications through various types of media, develop plans to deal with a
shooter on campus, continual efforts to ensure the campus is perceived as a “community”,
faculty training to deal with violent students, profiling, and reporting suspicious activity and
trusting campus police to intervene.
Deciphering the conflict and creating common ground was the showcase of creating a
new perspective. There was some difficulty finding strong research to provide solid insights in
relation to the focus question, as the empirical data is limited. Both retail management and
organizational leadership utilize qualitative and quantitative methods so integrating from those
perspectives was not exceptionally difficult.
The Newell Test is concerned with understanding the usefulness and the adequacy with
which the process was followed (Repko, 2012). Newell offers three questions to test the
understanding. In answering one of these questions, does it allow for more effective action, the
answer is yes. The new perspective provides further in depth detail and data, offering a more
comprehensive understanding. This research triggers further action, focusing on the economic
and community impact, due to the unveiled far reaching implications, perceived fear has on the
campus community in regards to campus carry.

References
Khubchandani, J., Dake, J., Payton, E., & Teeple, K. (2014). University presidents’ perceptions
and practice regarding the carry of concealed handguns on college campuses. Journal of
American College Health.
Smith, T. (2012). To conceal and carry or not to conceal and carry on higher education
campuses, that is the question. J Acad Ethics 10, 237-242.
Cook, P., & Ludwig, J. (2006). The social cost of gun ownership. Journal of Public Economics.
90(2006), 379-391.
Sulkowski, M., Lazarus, P. (2011). Contemporary responses to violent attacks on college
campuses. Journal of School Violence. 10(4), 338-354.
Bartula, A., & Bowen, K. (2015).University and college officials’ perception of open carry on
college campus. Justice Policy Journal. 12(2), 1-14.
Thompson, A., Price, J., Dake, J., & Stratton, C. (2013). Student perceptions and practices
regarding carrying concealed handguns on university campus. Journal of American College of
Health. 61(5), 243-253.
Bouffard, J., Nobles, M., Wells, W., & Cavanaugh, M. (2012). How many more guns?
Estimating the effect of allowing licensed concealed handguns on a college campus. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence. 277(2) 316-343.
Bouffard, J., Nobles, M., & William, W. (2012). Differences across majors in the desire to obtain
a license to carry a concealed handgun on campus: Implications for criminal justice education.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 23(3), 283-306.

Bennett, K., & Kraft, J. (2011). University faculty attitudes toward guns on campus. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education. 1-20.
Martin, W., LaVan, H., Lopez, Y., Naquin, C., & Katz, M. (2014). An ethical analysis of the
second amendment: the right to pack heat at work. Business & Society Review. 119(1), 1-36.
Bartula, A., & Bowen, K., (2015). University and college officials’ perceptions of open carry on
college campus. Justice Policy Journal. 12(2) 1-17.
Bennett, K., Kraft, J., & Grubb, D. (2011). University faculty attitudes toward guns on campus.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 1-20.
Cunningham, D. (2011). Guns on campus: The developing trend in state legislation. Journal of
Academic Administration Higher Education. 7(2) 71-77.
Auyero, J. (2015). The law allows handguns in university buildings and classrooms, extending
the reach of a previous law that allowed handguns on university grounds. Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/ campus-carry-law-higher-education/
Lopez, A. (2015). The economics and academic downsides of Texas’ campus carry law.
Retrieved from http://kut.org/post/economic-and-academic-downsides-texas-campus-carry-law
Repko, A. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process & theory. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

INTS3300 Relevant Artifact - Turnbow_3300_L8-RP

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to INTS3300 Relevant Artifact - Turnbow_3300_L8-RP

Similar to INTS3300 Relevant Artifact - Turnbow_3300_L8-RP (20)

INTS3300 Relevant Artifact - Turnbow_3300_L8-RP