<%BANNER%>

Contemporary Gun Policy and Policing: An Analysis of Police Cadet Attitudes toward Concealed Weapon Permitting Laws

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011361/00001

Material Information

Title: Contemporary Gun Policy and Policing: An Analysis of Police Cadet Attitudes toward Concealed Weapon Permitting Laws
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011361:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0011361/00001

Material Information

Title: Contemporary Gun Policy and Policing: An Analysis of Police Cadet Attitudes toward Concealed Weapon Permitting Laws
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0011361:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101124_AAAADZ INGEST_TIME 2010-11-25T01:29:33Z PACKAGE UFE0011361_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 68421 DFID F20101124_AACXIF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH nobles_m_Page_36.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
d781213f5ba9a44db6905db960e5d659
SHA-1
26af7b1fe69bdcd021aed173d46ecc9f1fd6382a
3100 F20101124_AACXNC nobles_m_Page_60thm.jpg
26956c906a449f88f3cb227061d38121
b9b9033eec62f9681bde068e72caf732fd5d4f47
56435 F20101124_AACXIG nobles_m_Page_37.jpg
07cdc0f33f4b9ed17eb8f482527edd86
1730784a7c3de63528fe1b410afb6e3dd502a9d8
5528 F20101124_AACXND nobles_m_Page_09thm.jpg
df2a83256c9088dd9f2069be617a4e86
2c21319402c6a2b1263d8b4703dda28cc1e00dd3
68209 F20101124_AACXIH nobles_m_Page_39.jpg
e25474e7e2591830acda7f7060375570
2e096d34f3a27ed4ff9f247eb072428b87d2cd88
6374 F20101124_AACXNE nobles_m_Page_35thm.jpg
e5d222c0920e0859201250afe1df1322
ccfb15c8d58bcbbe44b6a218b01152733b40b8da
71140 F20101124_AACXII nobles_m_Page_40.jpg
06f1d5965e970b21a5b58b34793d6ab0
e36cc4e10d7275a95135e2f11346831d1276a6a8
6647 F20101124_AACXNF nobles_m_Page_11thm.jpg
07a3b534642f7a92095657b63c34c16d
0629e9ff2bfd1ee2308f20b585508c800c1f420c
72524 F20101124_AACXIJ nobles_m_Page_42.jpg
32559f2bdd78ea1c6d1ef17e7044142a
4b9e619c19e0f3f5d8ba1fab10a526b4ddfdd8a3
4199 F20101124_AACXNG nobles_m_Page_48.QC.jpg
8d39af12f159c40c8b91b8101a3a9853
6eeb9cebe939f1f461d35a4f23d3279f7ff93efe
71050 F20101124_AACXIK nobles_m_Page_44.jpg
0a3067a3c8c9a34f35eb06734f86e48c
0e38c7ecee535f421a92e90bb7a76bdb852e3b81
22393 F20101124_AACXNH nobles_m_Page_35.QC.jpg
941d6d4c517f27b6a83e4b9fbcda3b45
8a97515167e7c9a5b621777a7850a4c09724cb9b
71827 F20101124_AACXIL nobles_m_Page_45.jpg
208084dc78d90c28b96075a34bfebd2f
0ad31ee236b3570f3194e2c81e85951ec1b08bc9
6295 F20101124_AACXNI nobles_m_Page_26thm.jpg
ed1c140974d005b8bb77a0423768c7a3
da9324f42a16143fe976c85dd1e4c128e5d80c26
64731 F20101124_AACXIM nobles_m_Page_46.jpg
502dcc59c41d88b1ee32023da264097d
159c85ebf2ce5b37720b44de63157858305181c0
5543 F20101124_AACXNJ nobles_m_Page_28thm.jpg
c9e7cf6c85bd4e28c9f17df50a1f6ffe
cc0cf371f7a2f577d832e7b7e3d1a635121733f1
12789 F20101124_AACXIN nobles_m_Page_48.jpg
e49543fd0658932fde7d0d53bc8356b4
75932b6e947bcdfbd737a66e261256d27e6bf0ae
6414 F20101124_AACXNK nobles_m_Page_22thm.jpg
a5d6144b4c4a6b2bdad0ae93f9eb988f
797bb824f510228af378eeee26766a5cca0963c5
34392 F20101124_AACXIO nobles_m_Page_50.jpg
c704d7618a655524aa971e2e3a5e5072
702f04659e21f7787612cfcded6dea936c73e69a
6266 F20101124_AACXNL nobles_m_Page_36thm.jpg
9f45c821d6640672e34f5cb28b8421a6
a7c10882e8e7cc273a4c231b6849851e7895fb0b
28147 F20101124_AACXIP nobles_m_Page_51.jpg
e89ddf0980475c13aa53fc667b62ef5d
aea1a87b8f75acd8ba9b824867e9e9454d59d77c
1401 F20101124_AACXNM nobles_m_Page_02thm.jpg
127dbad4fe1b27da2eb3a96e0997057c
bb5246935e39bdae9cf1657b7de2a2202b779345
42788 F20101124_AACXIQ nobles_m_Page_53.jpg
74c15439d66f9e8c5d5db3fd1d86df13
7fdcbfac93a006d8a086b0ff39edc3021afef808
9814 F20101124_AACXNN nobles_m_Page_60.QC.jpg
78e9c8ae8eea499d1be578597a4da8a9
ea6590a0eb0facbf48cbe4bd164891f2b0331d8e
52120 F20101124_AACXIR nobles_m_Page_54.jpg
da170a2c6ffbedf0c7b3d4869136bd9a
d46400a587d70e7b871eb293583dad8ba2c07de8
4949 F20101124_AACXNO nobles_m_Page_06.QC.jpg
7f4442e8b493edd559205dfcfc847bbe
8d3c3703197b00b906a9ba67a2018a369fdb2ed4
69844 F20101124_AACXIS nobles_m_Page_55.jpg
6889d303c2dfd659a6b6c2d6b4c05b18
4af320d1aef7e90d42dc2b3f4790333e68218760
3200 F20101124_AACXNP nobles_m_Page_50thm.jpg
7cffaf18513c8fc1901675f5d2fb4d8b
6804bde4b8e8914792462043a70eb758297adeff
71710 F20101124_AACXIT nobles_m_Page_57.jpg
8cb523fc85045735fc15ccae42cd080a
885867a2bf9a524db3a8e8682c6ae21cf38fdee6
19862 F20101124_AACXNQ nobles_m_Page_41.QC.jpg
b358c0f9ea7a23f5ed14bcb1cb280318
9ada11495d0167b79b63cd4a567a37cf5d45766e
88420 F20101124_AACXIU nobles_m_Page_58.jpg
a7ff9d5dc94f44d07b53a787b5be6119
8be3743b85423131418f4b4dda796fc7ef9810bd
2718 F20101124_AACXNR nobles_m_Page_61thm.jpg
a9483a4ab8c8921fd79714b39a10e716
effe9ebb2dc2473eb5ad5dd474f753c082a94f29
32195 F20101124_AACXIV nobles_m_Page_60.jpg
252bd0a5ff2973d8d794dda68cdde942
96b3760170c7ae0b6d085f34c9d636c3ed705c94
5044 F20101124_AACXNS nobles_m_Page_54thm.jpg
16a54ef0d17c3d7bf8770cab7c18610d
cfdb07b88bca7df0860a99f80d43cee879336a0f
26897 F20101124_AACXIW nobles_m_Page_01.jp2
ad51ed948c41fe78af67166a21b4dc98
02e313f21af9950a3e8a1931432c0163a857d61b
23416 F20101124_AACXNT nobles_m_Page_22.QC.jpg
20022b9e16c12b709f941838818dd785
7717cfe7863e45a310389284d6c6149483225f24
34162 F20101124_AACXIX nobles_m_Page_04.jp2
d3552db318b8397819a826490cd78a52
3c7fc93debc224db7964e88a5ac42c56b1179168
23377 F20101124_AACXNU nobles_m_Page_42.QC.jpg
8ef8e22e088114550a2e15a6499ce33e
c9f21e3011c5202272a1138db1dd99a773f1b70f
248238 F20101124_AACXIY nobles_m_Page_06.jp2
db9371a164a972512a231252a0e46b3f
f9d68bd925c5102ba7f7805ccd728e5abecfd48e
6229 F20101124_AACXNV nobles_m_Page_25thm.jpg
093309a5237a37f2025bdd3377658948
2d6b4efbb1153ed7c32dd095ca29e2fecceb0b4b
22679 F20101124_AACXNW nobles_m_Page_13.QC.jpg
56bedd4deb008317d978470b1d2f01ce
dbcc2dadb9add68005df17ab83e14fb0add7e885
6555 F20101124_AACXGA nobles_m_Page_24thm.jpg
65f0d4e0850943a2cdac18af0917974a
f2ed021d9b8a2879e75056037b700fbb8879f4c0
1051949 F20101124_AACXIZ nobles_m_Page_07.jp2
2b43c958e5523be7dee4de114469e3cd
0d6450cd32f9162336272787648410fc9afadaf9
3387 F20101124_AACXNX nobles_m_Page_02.QC.jpg
cd213116fe7cab7ba6deecea1449a095
134423c58a59e48ab10e9295e2187bb1a678c01c
1053954 F20101124_AACXGB nobles_m_Page_23.tif
b7099920756a664367b9071e86aeb887
9d1d9a14d96ecffe133396347198c05379f4e9cc
2018 F20101124_AACXNY nobles_m_Page_52thm.jpg
996ece322bc1fb7f317238ef7945e4bb
211b0314950d2573a944c6673416e377faef1915
16926 F20101124_AACXGC nobles_m_Page_52.jpg
a289e20257a23a051b116ca7244afd74
ecfd2294cb862acddef47ec0a0493b32291affd8
F20101124_AACXLA nobles_m_Page_12.tif
83b0b83df5cd8b799d976b370e282dae
429aa040c8cbd8eb85c38d3b86997a825310b7fb
5116 F20101124_AACXNZ nobles_m_Page_08thm.jpg
1f0cb6bd2fb4692d4b6aa46967451ff0
2e4eb939eee99b105e53002ede27550a9bad34d8
71278 F20101124_AACXGD nobles_m_Page_12.jpg
a980149c516486ea858aff7fa679290f
73c04101ae62dc214bbc03a47fb2f9f14c6ee902
F20101124_AACXLB nobles_m_Page_13.tif
3eeadac4849b31e52a20ae3eb487c85b
09abe534721e4c2e5aac91bc73eed9d20ae35ed3
71453 F20101124_AACXGE nobles_m_Page_10.jpg
702d91198d6dc48802d85aad3b2b3e43
c9d749e707ccbaafd0f808935b5b3811f4a5cd80
F20101124_AACXLC nobles_m_Page_14.tif
ac1788be2a646a92952f43e04c4ffb63
06a1a2444358583fcf8af5b363185ca5840596ce
23259 F20101124_AACXGF nobles_m_Page_31.QC.jpg
140b3ff921691e6199d46af9de604fc9
b3dbe6f52e92f0da0b0b8fd7d2224b2e34871e2a
6480 F20101124_AACXQA nobles_m_Page_40thm.jpg
f6433b4fbbe70b0c2428606c87a37942
6b254275582aaec3cdeb597f8d7fbbb34e02252f
F20101124_AACXLD nobles_m_Page_15.tif
f801b2e5a6d0bc5b2ede4f6d34bb6876
c0617f4bcbdf3d584533a9fe5e5a41f89354273c
24105 F20101124_AACXGG nobles_m_Page_18.QC.jpg
d0990757b3ee5405d8af76f2eae37fd8
57d521bab40c0904fa4d0dde73e57aa5dea58fa5
F20101124_AACXLE nobles_m_Page_17.tif
dbbc59c43e7d9a1ebc5b311ac8d94312
a0b9cd6c3557263ede8125da5ca7f9fcb4b1e95a
105980 F20101124_AACXGH nobles_m_Page_13.jp2
1eceb425fcd9bdaba6a8563cbf0b4be9
7be56b5eb96c45549a71184381021bf1437103f0
24498 F20101124_AACXQB nobles_m_Page_43.QC.jpg
d323c4ab88600fa916b6bf24f2994278
273860019898760b6a8f372f9cbcb91ac0a9bcfa
F20101124_AACXLF nobles_m_Page_18.tif
db9ef99f2d8761b9d7b24feeb5f04683
27ea89f341bb9cf6d4c7bb966478eb95fc2ffe55
1054428 F20101124_AACXGI nobles_m_Page_51.tif
30cb28884a69a68436f8b270e1b13ee1
eb04a7e9d05a7a6cab5cbb104844bca1e89fd697
6516 F20101124_AACXQC nobles_m_Page_44thm.jpg
73d87af2cce3429eed4d6538fef54bc1
32531681908f9ec3c046e0fe7643e79a1c8b1ab1
F20101124_AACXLG nobles_m_Page_19.tif
93ec6af39ecb5895c78a0ec0802a018d
0ed01b8690adb0acbb14d0b8969f0e922b499c86
103535 F20101124_AACXGJ nobles_m_Page_36.jp2
d90b20e924a1e0223d34233e9fe718a6
bcb133431c875a1a434e834609dcf68daf5aab2d
4078 F20101124_AACXQD nobles_m_Page_47thm.jpg
5a84e64d5cec99c479e9f6d9d0392738
a902d625330c68bdf471c0cd452eb7d08a3a48cb
F20101124_AACXLH nobles_m_Page_20.tif
7ab23d03ce972451758ea32daa61db5f
e05be81ce9565e3b2e5a203c6105846e66c91075
6726 F20101124_AACXGK nobles_m_Page_16thm.jpg
4880e2c5eb2d100a6bf2909f42bb557b
50cd32190c3c40099fe550ebeb6066afc4169f17
2961 F20101124_AACXQE nobles_m_Page_49thm.jpg
2f16d4f484da13e316b6fd84c66cb65f
a2f9bfb8d7118034d5ff4a062859be2780307560
F20101124_AACXLI nobles_m_Page_21.tif
13711fe32f49afa6b0be938623583c0f
12b95acaff45dff9b69913404c4e8d76de1cdec1
F20101124_AACXGL nobles_m_Page_45.tif
f0e7f200b77307f76ed01991848052b6
54b52db4468b58a737ca6d705df6bcd911080f38
8788 F20101124_AACXQF nobles_m_Page_51.QC.jpg
fe6765b89d9139329bb74ec872543dfd
de37da27bf449179d0734ae98ecb0f303b6a5d74
F20101124_AACXLJ nobles_m_Page_22.tif
b65b65470312e8afcc2af5452bde33ae
674164c407a7f32b0a9531818de903c8b84a804f
16359 F20101124_AACXGM nobles_m_Page_06.jpg
fb7df31d727d0e03cf38272807fdd05c
201c6c2b178cf4ba32bb32bc141e0d45eaeebfaf
12710 F20101124_AACXQG nobles_m_Page_53.QC.jpg
060cf54cae94125929298b0538d9ddb5
4f89ad69f70c18b599de04511f17f2b1758b2fd8
F20101124_AACXLK nobles_m_Page_24.tif
d30613f5fc98e164cceef6e1fa065781
0ecc93f6a499975666e8a073dac407f4a5a59c19
6326 F20101124_AACXGN nobles_m_Page_46thm.jpg
a2e5cae6f61330b943a61d277a22bf4f
1c90e5c7671f1ea5694cd962d59d9c997f590c83
22954 F20101124_AACXQH nobles_m_Page_59.QC.jpg
b9ba46b3653913d8a33fa1fe11fa1d97
2250b67da0929ded9a87e9f3866e7006610b6b3b
F20101124_AACXLL nobles_m_Page_25.tif
f8c3e76a3f4c17b8d04b9d4e24ea4dd1
52939478d84c57ef9b0df467c7e59a3e4f1d860d
73477 F20101124_AACXGO nobles_m_Page_59.jpg
724497ae4cd3a9e4e949799fdab07638
818d77ea50f32bd5c83cdb65ab9a9370a231b800
F20101124_AACXLM nobles_m_Page_26.tif
69aff6891af6d7d96b0ae7d6d86b8a24
11b8a49d9f73ae853b4194b940951aaaee125f57
7058 F20101124_AACXGP nobles_m_Page_01.QC.jpg
5869ed1d5358c77436000a34721a81ac
a7d5b29b9d1a6dc2d7d918cb5db5c791d742a001
F20101124_AACXLN nobles_m_Page_27.tif
451b3a3b0805ea0efe253126a2c4f07c
2436998864cdfc82deb0da57b9ad480635a79992
6264 F20101124_AACXGQ nobles_m_Page_21thm.jpg
249b1d1fb05ba51c00b3b8a8e2344fac
9b81d290999079a39157b44233728dc4aab1d6c5
F20101124_AACXLO nobles_m_Page_28.tif
94763bbde247858cd716784fded177af
c5a9c0425b60f87e36fc356c349ff7a45e10b859
2098 F20101124_AACXGR nobles_m_Page_56thm.jpg
2a2f2bc195858bea0d1e34778fb5502c
02618e73ab43b9eb1780bd2875ac1c0d49aacd1d
F20101124_AACXLP nobles_m_Page_30.tif
c910cd2f51a2fb03d64857adc1a42d8d
66ea5adbe553d48ee94155b9c8a53ee096dc1833
9009 F20101124_AACXGS nobles_m_Page_49.QC.jpg
7a3d921999bb3006fe442420c498e848
d1004e25699b928c50eb206fe9dedbbf4f4f54a7
F20101124_AACXLQ nobles_m_Page_31.tif
f41f28ad025a6aca0999ec485b7faf89
20621c9c309ea874c1966f8ac14b9a4752a89a28
62158 F20101124_AACXGT nobles_m_Page_51.jp2
61b2e65319d81605b2c5663ba7895ee9
35433a78d1902b1cd1c36afd60fccd10bcc492aa
F20101124_AACXLR nobles_m_Page_32.tif
f0723583314ecbcf5c4d2a122d8ab64c
6b5ebbdaa966647fb71805c67df739ca4224cd4b
5547 F20101124_AACXGU nobles_m_Page_27thm.jpg
213083846aae6b8cb3254c3452c04725
f870e9f6ea19f0183aa52a677cbecadc76d79295
F20101124_AACXLS nobles_m_Page_33.tif
6c29b5db7272f26bbc547bd54063af68
ecb55618fd47f901507615264871cd0c65f387e0
5847 F20101124_AACXGV nobles_m_Page_55thm.jpg
096bf2ee40c91f0526573c0c8a851aaa
72074511da60fcc3805307d7e2b1f68b066b86e4
F20101124_AACXLT nobles_m_Page_34.tif
276b892978e5ea8c44a5c70cf698c922
7c3b6e58b46edaff62f2bcf168c781fc3788ebdc
27521 F20101124_AACXGW nobles_m_Page_04.jpg
4e2ba05df20d0692e3017d397733c908
9b43ea8aa62daaebec4c0f738969ecaa25c6fa29
F20101124_AACXLU nobles_m_Page_35.tif
6f24c06cb210a5039094a1c5cceb9d30
1fbd7a30e2c755e4dfdcf4745088e172f9784167
F20101124_AACXLV nobles_m_Page_36.tif
cea81de151fdf8057921a94b64f4a093
d905a08f3da11134ac5602a65885da76b73cbc12
86739 F20101124_AACXGX nobles_m_Page_09.jp2
a47e7c90d7a83b160f5a1b92653c4bef
f3ba8787c3a3dc7d2a7a64aabb982c9896302777
F20101124_AACXLW nobles_m_Page_37.tif
7113af6afc7d165bf748149e3b3029af
d02e7cc7aa173a8d55088b57aa7d330ae90c03ab
18212 F20101124_AACXGY nobles_m_Page_33.QC.jpg
5d927309efc32cf1719b1eded479c289
f7b7f5283429018ca45dcbba27e39059e6905a17
F20101124_AACXLX nobles_m_Page_38.tif
dda507336b285ffe8022174b88048a25
63f04fe314031af2795a350dd47a5e67e706e4aa
47465 F20101124_AACXGZ UFE0011361_00001.mets FULL
3084206482778c2c196326e4a77c78e9
fbc49eab16c04ebe439fbd54d2352c97dc4db0a9
F20101124_AACXLY nobles_m_Page_39.tif
c6a3400b8c694650d7acbc58f41ec690
25af088ca501e2104034b94f3c32a98d918a8e33
F20101124_AACXLZ nobles_m_Page_40.tif
35587a26ac0113ed8bce235ae2d91ffd
30bf0bffcb37eb3a60b8b8039ab6cc03f3eee7a3
109545 F20101124_AACXJA nobles_m_Page_10.jp2
2a1e64ebb5d2b59f7a4035a3d0a3b522
78c9bf399b48ace955e692d9de5b8332b8e06eeb
112007 F20101124_AACXJB nobles_m_Page_11.jp2
b9eda4bd2787e92f42afecdba68c6270
6469fda73e51e3754e200652eac1bad8ea4c3525
107654 F20101124_AACXJC nobles_m_Page_12.jp2
27041eecf4d3e4511578505318b297ba
ca69b2cdfc79b564881c76cfef2a690ab283cb76
23590 F20101124_AACXOA nobles_m_Page_23.QC.jpg
98e80556efc52ac80083a21d0241503d
16ebefd1ded41bb926128620739b070a51af90ba
107729 F20101124_AACXJD nobles_m_Page_14.jp2
de8cf6daf095a624776f8c25a05cc5be
22101d3596b19367a7a12328682458059c057d46
25881 F20101124_AACXOB nobles_m_Page_58.QC.jpg
70929da66da370a71e70e1cf316e482f
e275f5c887487dea5c5649fedf91864e2f533b27
109687 F20101124_AACXJE nobles_m_Page_15.jp2
736bc1648ed3d66b8de2cb259cd69b96
6aa86f76402b6a6e97d1b9765399eb871ec1f90c
8708 F20101124_AACXOC nobles_m_Page_61.QC.jpg
d6ffe347a26a34da2fbf92030198ce40
71e6c04ade7a3f27c6836ee09283ae8e7533b42d
110144 F20101124_AACXJF nobles_m_Page_17.jp2
ba4ae4dd442c9d0705e2087f8f96e950
c6106c2a47728073540606d1972237ccbed4a5dc
20760 F20101124_AACXOD nobles_m_Page_30.QC.jpg
04083066b85e3c49a5a2e71cc3d5b723
a2754e0fcd87cbc92cff17e207f1da71a0d86516
117146 F20101124_AACXJG nobles_m_Page_18.jp2
84c3b2a1b024ffd7cdf91caf367688b5
967809c46f162ca12f74774b583d0b0b7569dee9
23313 F20101124_AACXEK nobles_m_Page_24.QC.jpg
f73779deaee07440d67ea0de1d17cdde
5b922ab9cd8185d596b6e46a685e908af473b9ba
1536 F20101124_AACXOE nobles_m_Page_48thm.jpg
fe8b680adfce668b2719eabb440ed1c5
b52d3b6320b4bb5b8578e8fa63526dcc4e29a815
106474 F20101124_AACXJH nobles_m_Page_19.jp2
026c80a98644ab8a9f90b56f0559e394
e3ea864e61d80ac433c2c151d22ef3981cb0a189
109600 F20101124_AACXEL nobles_m_Page_45.jp2
aeb82ced4f8e58836810bc38a73c8b1a
76be3ec5af507b0bbd7ef60783a2605a5036fb57
23347 F20101124_AACXOF nobles_m_Page_45.QC.jpg
a452db3dac2c800ab8bf17952be383d0
36cb873fcf6f689adb3f2db95d7896b14c8cd68e
105577 F20101124_AACXJI nobles_m_Page_20.jp2
e6383643292bb1fdfcd7e0989362ce88
f148535dbcb2598956accd37628eb3eacbb50a5b
F20101124_AACXEM nobles_m_Page_47.tif
a59c3e2776a72c8269844c25fdc03300
dc052c8ce6b55b640c81f679125bfc846ae500cc
22928 F20101124_AACXOG nobles_m_Page_29.QC.jpg
87528a3369d2f78a6f4efd1ed93a476f
8d476320c839f854e9a98054ad643a7106c77196
105887 F20101124_AACXJJ nobles_m_Page_21.jp2
d1c412919011211d3ddcdc9b9e34913f
2503869d84692b6e399eacc6d1cc3b6ed7f653a6
43206 F20101124_AACXEN nobles_m_Page_47.jpg
5abed40d38683653f84172de365003a4
bc54d9090accc815fe8585519b038f38f4337cb9
22836 F20101124_AACXOH nobles_m_Page_25.QC.jpg
0fa69dea1cdbd77b0ae223c6a3a17208
8839a3f9777efdc67682d92550010cf7a04886be
109849 F20101124_AACXJK nobles_m_Page_22.jp2
3a5535835e5e13f3eb42708045c1fabe
7c28768de152819af3f4dd80b13237768c7991dc
5430 F20101124_AACXOI nobles_m_Page_38thm.jpg
8daa8c98a29c1812ceb89177739dc7cc
ac4cff5302ac0f02d42e0392d79b1755f3043842
109290 F20101124_AACXJL nobles_m_Page_23.jp2
0daceea550e0fc366f7648e50876f7d1
b55ef353ecfd104a4042ba612fb4d9c5d2a7069a
57553 F20101124_AACXEO nobles_m_Page_53.jp2
acb08eb429a052ad93a35b6c9e54eb92
2a21574a68f3ee613b97abbaec87a6e9b77438b4
18925 F20101124_AACXOJ nobles_m_Page_38.QC.jpg
268c3627a717fd60f9948dc8234082a6
f2b14fe99dff125353b417367e4a58220bd051f5
109398 F20101124_AACXJM nobles_m_Page_24.jp2
8addc2da177be6f98912c6f9c6c4e825
f5c428d5c4f310cd58533bb3fa469c2b345dabd0
63703 F20101124_AACXEP nobles_m_Page_30.jpg
4352c9e7ed5ea68f04c6b6caad3ec949
105e20aa55521c13e0f34037ccbd7cc782b570af
1474 F20101124_AACXOK nobles_m_Page_03thm.jpg
44a767912f377852fc268a2ac84cfa67
321864dd21694890ad2625c742969370251a6e3c
107990 F20101124_AACXJN nobles_m_Page_25.jp2
786e18ed47cfe1c2b272283c5eca2c4b
2881ef68e79b5f22151fee8f01b64f8935e71136
8175 F20101124_AACXEQ nobles_m_Page_03.jp2
0abfa27972dfc2d0f289666bed7be036
1df35b52cbc2604202605349fa745e4fb3ca71a9
9880 F20101124_AACXOL nobles_m_Page_50.QC.jpg
b39fca0c54c53ef7cfdee6e7bf8e400b
c2c11f4d47819970c19ca5b715b4545f1eabf767
105941 F20101124_AACXJO nobles_m_Page_26.jp2
e0f4a912c150d62f7c0603533cdeed85
44e7262c1672634206a305a82d666bb6e3ec2a50
5285 F20101124_AACXER nobles_m_Page_33thm.jpg
d4b084820846136e76ce82d49d3b2ca4
575ca63c40216a5d54ed403b0dd781ee1283daa7
4579 F20101124_AACXOM nobles_m_Page_05thm.jpg
c21c1e331d8b20ef19df976a04b2ec64
99360eed47484ce1c6618d18ee2080af766e610c
91591 F20101124_AACXJP nobles_m_Page_27.jp2
c8fd1e42da2e3661375e7536bf4e45f5
d50b7b1ddf31c671892e6a7b7dab757116abc1a9
6559 F20101124_AACXES nobles_m_Page_32thm.jpg
b6bc633d88581c73d808f3c374dfa468
83ae6dd6e006dab8c75de407b125bbeb12ec5f16
17494 F20101124_AACXON nobles_m_Page_37.QC.jpg
c04ba4b81481c5ab9152b8f91515f125
7cce54e7422050cee5fc146b75238408225c1a82
87088 F20101124_AACXJQ nobles_m_Page_28.jp2
01b269b45fa2c861acbfe904d487e8da
6cfbd39d10972dc8e2be7dad8e62b5cfdc9e14a3
F20101124_AACXET nobles_m_Page_46.tif
1adf5dd0ac0181d602849f0f90fd8285
8f4035e89da7a983119397fe8406534d58822ac7
2850 F20101124_AACXOO nobles_m_Page_51thm.jpg
70428ba34bb75c1ffcc54840f1d76792
decf798c3b8ca6ad94adf06f3ea302fe6d40361b
107040 F20101124_AACXJR nobles_m_Page_29.jp2
723876b07955a30dc6673b0e749f5cd7
dc108d5e6f78851fe860597c241be7629e4bb3aa
28984 F20101124_AACXEU nobles_m_Page_49.jpg
2c5e5e7aea52572d4a1747a0b6b86b43
04f49f9ec27c24146eacc13c479b3e27caff76a7
15994 F20101124_AACXOP nobles_m_Page_54.QC.jpg
5fdadf0403856654dc99069a6efbfd3c
883b2c27e045119be194d2997d9b6d11b2d7337c
108819 F20101124_AACXJS nobles_m_Page_31.jp2
46cffb8167c3d4bf935293eb241cedc0
caa6bb97893f8be38c0f4be7106e69c8093f0460
6437 F20101124_AACXOQ nobles_m_Page_12thm.jpg
d65f80c5d263641edecd95a7fd6bb01f
ae22635f415124ec05dafbf06fb1a300e7c48ec7
105109 F20101124_AACXJT nobles_m_Page_32.jp2
a9f55640a7ef925798d24c882759e7ed
44e46c808ddca8ed0cc5514827dcc887b79012a3
F20101124_AACXEV nobles_m_Page_29.tif
ffef8beedc6d2162d070d4f788b0af48
c5a3de2231c35c4b36fd991eb512a5309843aaf8
6407 F20101124_AACXOR nobles_m_Page_45thm.jpg
64bb7c00a83ad37b197539209dff0eac
ea5346f84d9b69c82475451ea4e559804bad39a7
90300 F20101124_AACXJU nobles_m_Page_33.jp2
edfa41f7b04b57363abeaf754576d683
5691fa025bfa0e126ae01e4c7bc4d6a1fc409ddd
F20101124_AACXEW nobles_m_Page_11.tif
71f9a8c69f6af2712379a59379da8286
fb71e4c84f914a475003b6119c9a5bcceda35e99
22638 F20101124_AACXOS nobles_m_Page_44.QC.jpg
7a49bb69efff5c1607badb3334eb109a
25cefb497525d3b0d64870dc8761de44980e01c3
91205 F20101124_AACXJV nobles_m_Page_34.jp2
181d59149f452fd479d80532cac77013
e2d342a26836fef6ac26415400a150ac3823aaed
22293 F20101124_AACXEX nobles_m_Page_39.QC.jpg
27879c6c2a3ff49767c3bdd64e631235
dddae009dd7c653a9ebcb439e062667a09fb84be
16338 F20101124_AACXOT nobles_m_Page_05.QC.jpg
c993df1000be09825bb49b0fd9e51fcc
5e32aa92a915cd395b75ffceeded419383205842
107091 F20101124_AACXJW nobles_m_Page_35.jp2
5f876dfb05fa4d3c8a62e531f5962e5d
3bd464257f2a28ab97913cdedc0c7b236992fc34
F20101124_AACXEY nobles_m_Page_60.tif
d3d9306857eadae344fc03718eb810aa
46b68816772f787871edeb8c1dbdf7bbec1d750e
4423 F20101124_AACXOU nobles_m_Page_07thm.jpg
7635ae6651a212263e38e708e7e897ee
8eccfd2a4b3e7a949c06967cb3718d0f5f038b28
85837 F20101124_AACXJX nobles_m_Page_37.jp2
68fbc114b28075dd21b7da938c195fba
a6529809aa1774435b54191618f40de0822fd5c2
61270 F20101124_AACXEZ nobles_m_Page_41.jpg
18e352c38b703b3de376f564016a7dbb
c5c0aef4c2cd80a25ac2876f861c2bdda4db22a6
6307 F20101124_AACXOV nobles_m_Page_23thm.jpg
b17d1fff859675bb0702c55b095905ea
159d02cbefcebfb13fc9b4780d5df84f0a44c756
97246 F20101124_AACXJY nobles_m_Page_38.jp2
9832498ba05ce5dd602bec925f614c8c
08fcd892d5764df57f9fd025d0aaa0470c4d1434
6380 F20101124_AACXOW nobles_m_Page_17thm.jpg
d7d7ef2d896b55ca431ffe43a9b4870c
d359181fcc5fa49d09caaef61d12c481bcabcae6
105428 F20101124_AACXJZ nobles_m_Page_39.jp2
1ebfc32de65cb26539a3ac10d8dfbb06
952b96cd61e2365d3364d0abd9be33de6fac97f7
6117 F20101124_AACXOX nobles_m_Page_39thm.jpg
03195fe149f3f9f2dc4ea79a93bff98c
0590ba99b3e6c4720afe16cd2780b6d76cd921a1
24746 F20101124_AACXHC nobles_m_Page_01.jpg
09096511d8c363a0e63febaa1fb58357
11e5b7c078627491880351379bc524d58b30fde2
5968 F20101124_AACXOY nobles_m_Page_57thm.jpg
98df1e2b6137d9361f2d248f8a058358
c2c647aa6f9ce7b036841a58217aaec1d2af0420
10567 F20101124_AACXHD nobles_m_Page_02.jpg
62a48aba589e6a3cc409cbb92fe83bce
bb9b411402a9950f269be324b894a2f60f80a4e2
F20101124_AACXMA nobles_m_Page_41.tif
612eeadd415db6354c3d2746433b77b4
f7338b0d82791b871626514e187c69c1f51b3b98
5643 F20101124_AACXOZ nobles_m_Page_34thm.jpg
26f5f41de79e435f945c5a925167fc9a
8fa28f4abd87d172fb13f600d1d582f81a4430ae
11860 F20101124_AACXHE nobles_m_Page_03.jpg
1be107a40b2556f3d63e20f4176cca0c
e81fb137ea67b982c1c9f6bc3bcd5c0a5e6e5090
F20101124_AACXMB nobles_m_Page_42.tif
2723c0ad338dd01e66d1a550cde16738
8d85e7250df745db8dcc18115f51d512467704b0
62123 F20101124_AACXHF nobles_m_Page_05.jpg
1fc8951f1d0957143e01ca75d35b6c6b
e6f9a55f991ae16609f38fc7ceb00b0b24b91256
F20101124_AACXMC nobles_m_Page_43.tif
0f3e5e164b56d55da9ae8c9bd7a96332
2642d4257f793d394f81d31f92600fa965a2d05d
53799 F20101124_AACXHG nobles_m_Page_07.jpg
a92e66897ae6f33d000a9baa54812ef6
0bc54f3d1680643b56449ce0b06cba83497359db
F20101124_AACXMD nobles_m_Page_44.tif
ad58c3215d62dfe32020e294a7181665
3b6b066288a72a6ddec59d307a3c2b875d38d255
58365 F20101124_AACXHH nobles_m_Page_08.jpg
683f1e1fa0231c70485c63822010208f
1aa48cc8b8da13bd7dc600c9b7c3e8b3f247e780
F20101124_AACXME nobles_m_Page_48.tif
f49ade231937eb2b170a3a4afa68bcfa
000c2a7798f629fe6940a3717fb37a247d7f13e0
59314 F20101124_AACXHI nobles_m_Page_09.jpg
323667840b871fa52581da1f7b56fa31
5cb5db0306d5084992028a84dd4812c0ea89f399
F20101124_AACXMF nobles_m_Page_49.tif
80f1d9b98f27eb22c8891e332ab40c6e
a6589a9c27645843ba00265f3ec9090d2ec7e5bb
72757 F20101124_AACXHJ nobles_m_Page_11.jpg
07ea4e797b443264b7599498e13f6f6a
7423e5c1bec3581d63229dd84429c7db9ff3f94b
F20101124_AACXMG nobles_m_Page_52.tif
c320e5267217c80b00248bf1c95a52bb
2dbdbc47078730d2a9a093f7b5d1e10bff8ea1dc
F20101124_AACXMH nobles_m_Page_53.tif
da3a15a6a4243f3749df4bb5b456042f
8bbe144feaafa8e55c86a362c92ea7efc96ef4a5
69573 F20101124_AACXHK nobles_m_Page_13.jpg
f3975b5d8a83603bd5acd56840400a24
c4a3f8309c04a5ea1b693d88d5ca4e7ba47f6660
F20101124_AACXMI nobles_m_Page_54.tif
0bc72968f8f8fbe88f2b229ddaa06634
1e50b8ed1f4e8e4c739eebdd054f787513f8ed56
70344 F20101124_AACXHL nobles_m_Page_14.jpg
acb94d3cb3d9c63acae281507566f2c2
0adeb689a81b5bea19a0c939f15f7a10d12b574d
F20101124_AACXMJ nobles_m_Page_55.tif
63cdc20cdf5bfd12f80f1c1bfb021863
258950be16b1160c7a67854be79b9358a1a4e3ee
72374 F20101124_AACXHM nobles_m_Page_15.jpg
b88d7fa1c198c13108954065cd6a2031
c626498a1333e498eb6c0b184c24bf073589ea0a
F20101124_AACXMK nobles_m_Page_56.tif
c57f50fc2ee01978072387e4f9f44673
c04088e4770cf1f9edcedf96ec4eb84da5572a3b
78350 F20101124_AACXHN nobles_m_Page_16.jpg
7e2146bae8e1e3e517c8885874952bbf
04e9992c6ba219b70631c7a556497ed5a0db1666
F20101124_AACXML nobles_m_Page_57.tif
93b4eedc729e3884ce98a6ccbc644231
4908f00a1d79f85062d74bb0c5b5d1a21d0b6c33
71936 F20101124_AACXHO nobles_m_Page_17.jpg
80c2463a7da91a8be4d377b955edd7f1
7a09e17af1432d3cc76691894f6a65a304eff693
25271604 F20101124_AACXMM nobles_m_Page_58.tif
49b4cc33991999771adae38399328971
d29e52db1638197fc895f95bf161b80976cb2012
77251 F20101124_AACXHP nobles_m_Page_18.jpg
02ddaabed5ca2f32455ad867911715ca
f636d77612cbd0084abfcc0842a524bc805093ee
F20101124_AACXMN nobles_m_Page_59.tif
380d1bc9dc9a5d91b9cdc0380e977503
15282a2e95544a77d2cb7b89e5e2ffca012058e3
70493 F20101124_AACXHQ nobles_m_Page_19.jpg
52db1da37674dd752f60391288759506
d8b493d0d23cd103887fdeef741edafaa636a2a0
F20101124_AACXMO nobles_m_Page_61.tif
44a2e3af09b37b79d060e936a2b1f29f
8250a8370e784b267518362935cc1e8d21687184
70058 F20101124_AACXHR nobles_m_Page_20.jpg
0058529254be44af5f853fdda800b4b0
7326e339edaf6e20a87449bdb46b8435b1ef5f1b
486613 F20101124_AACXMP nobles_m.pdf
8fd06a1f3f19d766e37198de61ad6a4e
f9e771c01910a3a82b17242daf55e91eee5c756b
69912 F20101124_AACXHS nobles_m_Page_21.jpg
8338a3f0bb18c424b3828c8e12c352f8
3e9f07c502304f1df9cd1ad8ad1b015ad8bad6e4
23167 F20101124_AACXMQ nobles_m_Page_10.QC.jpg
7f0ca7c38e656003e3cda784bf2ca639
3c1e89e932ef7646b8683262a3785007064f88f6
71807 F20101124_AACXHT nobles_m_Page_22.jpg
f6503b913a3f3d4b030aa1f362845670
5ea230cce49502bf0ad507daa54fcd6f9bcb653b
20531 F20101124_AACXMR nobles_m_Page_55.QC.jpg
ffdca99ca2eab8048ac4e7cf6e727666
03111bb933ca8c8d91f565a54d38641e8a1f4fd8
71963 F20101124_AACXHU nobles_m_Page_23.jpg
6c19bced6283e60b36303212a24adec0
975e2d83a1dd6de1a3bcd77d980dc980b6e4e028
6513 F20101124_AACXMS nobles_m_Page_10thm.jpg
d850f2662724686a32e7c8879e1e0763
ab446cdc18f42fb4bfea0803bad4afe27dd3b1ed
72222 F20101124_AACXHV nobles_m_Page_24.jpg
0a52c0f6c52afec7503d8734e0cdd579
633a00dad1aff5c426a366ca9626cad78bda86e7
13985 F20101124_AACXMT nobles_m_Page_47.QC.jpg
0f0d825594e05737c86a9962035553a6
e00115ea8b6d9327fd3e7a3fa49c2243017706f1
70612 F20101124_AACXHW nobles_m_Page_25.jpg
f2d8f7ed67ea68ff8d61d34b947cc2f0
2031b26c613dafa5b085cb8261b563ebcd974161
5736 F20101124_AACXMU nobles_m_Page_41thm.jpg
b84fcbb5fe289c8573ef978b2295229a
f4c47329f04a31098f0a6dd9e079dc36544ce557
69788 F20101124_AACXHX nobles_m_Page_26.jpg
d2cd85ce0c80178cc4c8d2ad89c80dfb
1668e74696483a58e06a480863ee1f4fe039d7ee
6276 F20101124_AACXMV nobles_m_Page_14thm.jpg
fbfe2c08aadeb7942d0189526b9ee4af
19b65073619745b777b442110782a3ad7ee85f3e
24017 F20101124_AACXMW nobles_m_Page_11.QC.jpg
f27d5853851afc5c77c48f4f595cea50
164272d92b001fd26dc3123a024b4099e0ea5e77
6077 F20101124_AACXFA nobles_m_Page_02.jp2
2873cd9d6a2293b561981ecd563b50ff
0ff6609a4cd642ea9e8e0ce78bda093ea78fd127
60391 F20101124_AACXHY nobles_m_Page_27.jpg
aa93bfb6db2e8666c6d18a7a16db453d
7eb843db08bc13dc65214beb8d4391a340b06e29
6318 F20101124_AACXMX nobles_m_Page_13thm.jpg
ab667dde23b97ec3b0b35b6beace35fb
0a302f5f9316d77f82c9c1fe70828bda51d36d83
59883 F20101124_AACXFB nobles_m_Page_38.jpg
d4900fc95bfb652bd01a054801956e23
c8b61b19ecd806bba69848c9d4c207eb7555678e
57042 F20101124_AACXHZ nobles_m_Page_28.jpg
d3fa7c42b33bf8c71a49b9e41f73915c
cab6459e540e151e081db28dc5189a02a9d87dab
23799 F20101124_AACXMY nobles_m_Page_15.QC.jpg
6fe23d7c55e917dbb65ab12696c2be88
8a0601616c653d00685846a911183479b028ecda
6469 F20101124_AACXFC nobles_m_Page_42thm.jpg
248b4275078b5cc6e3c9ff7c9e8c6311
337f695c77a1ead12fb6e5525d93cf0a52ed2e33
109141 F20101124_AACXKA nobles_m_Page_40.jp2
405738ea76b7196b43c3902aadf9ab37
dce47c5231c150e0cfe57fb874b49c947e15b2d9
6886 F20101124_AACXMZ nobles_m_Page_43thm.jpg
60fbfcf71b9c7f4677704b2ce3f626a7
69343c4e210b8195c930f71a855c193eafdee9ac
111063 F20101124_AACXFD nobles_m_Page_42.jp2
6961802fdf5a6bafc90d493c31df79cd
2387f1e63af69f24607a412e62b5ae92a2a24fb6
95124 F20101124_AACXKB nobles_m_Page_41.jp2
ce007d81afda11bf4a4c4a06a1727029
fd7ce7d1d6ebbaa05bbee5f8516c9ae6a2f05f83
74730 F20101124_AACXFE nobles_m_Page_43.jpg
d26efd75d4c118e4b1b33b03975aa6e8
053643b0c23b848d1bd611ce1b25850e2ce8c775
114511 F20101124_AACXKC nobles_m_Page_43.jp2
c8d8f015423dad96206c5e03194e6823
9fdc9a1fa4b9d78afef2ec7cb1c959d7839b640e
26332 F20101124_AACXFF nobles_m_Page_61.jpg
abc4de7c14bb712b66b5819520a44c02
28203d2519bc87e2aa192c2c35a6ec4aeb50db08
107139 F20101124_AACXKD nobles_m_Page_44.jp2
04ed93fd76b80b3aaba3c6d09787583e
a411baa12b48c7cc6cabe17d9d58da5c9677620f
18841 F20101124_AACXFG nobles_m_Page_28.QC.jpg
b97224cad80c9fa3d270a0281a9cb049
2445d23f5cb7b3feb54c72723660c3425341f646
6644 F20101124_AACXPA nobles_m_Page_18thm.jpg
a7c91e58b0c8a9231e61eb5b85c40cc8
a033686db40493c8c11875994b474dc9bbe1a09c
99783 F20101124_AACXKE nobles_m_Page_46.jp2
09fa4559b928834f2172d2bc1f9eb6ab
a2857f8a485f259a92e2a62926df5dddf195e121
F20101124_AACXFH nobles_m_Page_50.tif
dc96901ca5b0309bd368e9caf75b53f4
2979862677cdd80094c4d4a1d222a31715be1f39
21570 F20101124_AACXPB nobles_m_Page_57.QC.jpg
1e971f27080838975b4fb89f94dbf97b
4bb76ada9875cdee33373f9682d5af5c4618610e
61889 F20101124_AACXKF nobles_m_Page_47.jp2
9ce1ba01b306542b1e89f74a6bf89792
0a5257ec11e6ed635266b55d594941ee3cd98845
84006 F20101124_AACXFI nobles_m_Page_08.jp2
78aff274c97eb56ef5453a7e6ba7dcdb
b5154de3b6f7ec538dc3065c480df8c16095cf81
2906 F20101124_AACXPC nobles_m_Page_04thm.jpg
63425f368efb84177b3594cd7f30d1f9
0462cbcf6a5fafa3e2a6016bd3e9677336d6d3ca
118323 F20101124_AACXFJ nobles_m_Page_16.jp2
285c22cc2668e6ec3330070a3b079427
a725054018a1be536090045a28f2fc9f0563af6c
6290 F20101124_AACXPD nobles_m_Page_56.QC.jpg
3e466cd9e230d3569346978ba55a0586
59ae0a56ce79b106c2ff5b9108d80ea8a2054a44
59304 F20101124_AACXKG nobles_m_Page_49.jp2
d672336360a367bb7247bc461e9e0cad
97d5ec5b90c2fc57a16fd6bb385c871501c647ac
8762 F20101124_AACXFK nobles_m_Page_04.QC.jpg
0456bff4f4160bb98db7526cc4c3f2b5
457a08ff29c40d0cc553dc75394e9ab75b76387e
22781 F20101124_AACXPE nobles_m_Page_12.QC.jpg
b81c4352ab0e3cd66e9b059ba51d8e63
aa7001e39e59f43942137327fcc0b30dcdcb74cd
73912 F20101124_AACXKH nobles_m_Page_50.jp2
afdfb759346fa4304d6956585306bed7
6ce908aa9e31348d830bdd99fdde58c5553a65d9
19932 F20101124_AACXFL nobles_m_Page_34.QC.jpg
95ac67a1fdbbcb42aa74ae4f87b101a1
546e82776ff7dafdfa67316c14cbd6581b2457e6
6899 F20101124_AACXPF nobles_m_Page_58thm.jpg
cd25de9800f041c3596c6804cef92b28
d1ae7f1262568f6239bc92fd17f3a0a72c435674
34419 F20101124_AACXKI nobles_m_Page_52.jp2
f56b4c2f9db7dae93f0a5bf85a09985b
9b0cb453946d1f912b592415be48d317cba3bc1f
6410 F20101124_AACXFM nobles_m_Page_15thm.jpg
c322df4a20c0bbacbd5ab4edf6496d87
da74d0ac5010ac66a35b853d03320ce7ba0c35b9
5562 F20101124_AACXPG nobles_m_Page_52.QC.jpg
c182d898aec1da153fe2dcfc732155ae
c2129071a6245e175ff3f6eb248d48f96c21d031
77908 F20101124_AACXKJ nobles_m_Page_54.jp2
1fcd68f4ec93696db56c7ddd8e9d11e7
e3cdbc1e7928a866be174d1454b551eb56b0a609
69737 F20101124_AACXFN nobles_m_Page_35.jpg
08fe804506f272650d7ffd3787aaa83f
cc0c7bbe8ab4bd7d7444fb8c448b6310e3cf9491
6416 F20101124_AACXPH nobles_m_Page_19thm.jpg
50d152795e92f8eb46b39058ebdbf0e0
4c83df155513c42b681c4c0af63eb07ddc525877
104057 F20101124_AACXKK nobles_m_Page_55.jp2
f9c25ec4388806d5bbd5483a37e18047
9f09166589e20be537ce15aa9a6ca921235b2ca3
1051978 F20101124_AACXFO nobles_m_Page_05.jp2
18c9fa3751765cc27ef37afaf75d7299
2a10ccb627719405e2f7ca44814b2ad4292dddff
68587 F20101124_AACXPI UFE0011361_00001.xml
c3c2b17fe97ed4e8a4d8e69bece17983
78593dd2a8e6d9aaf5c8c5de48fd3f8c2ab6ed3a
23912 F20101124_AACXKL nobles_m_Page_56.jp2
cc837d9690b2e5262950c3bfb04711b7
61e993b34ecfdfed41d1120f41c5d48968055aa4
21423 F20101124_AACXFP nobles_m_Page_46.QC.jpg
69e616cebf9dd322e339a7829f197b87
2a55e8a175b3eb4722c2413566c9f023a26ab511
2459 F20101124_AACXPJ nobles_m_Page_01thm.jpg
0992f0790ca05d040be50e8edb745589
58889d4f655454b7e82251874084629a73411c3a
107042 F20101124_AACXKM nobles_m_Page_57.jp2
4dca439abe7a0fc21eca98612501b6ed
68b4ba25014cd4c1cfbe526dba1d4f9f6dc2d555
22489 F20101124_AACXFQ nobles_m_Page_20.QC.jpg
42390081f923534dbc3a4e8b452d39bf
0ca5146c0889433dcefeeeefc2c63f20ea781356
3505 F20101124_AACXPK nobles_m_Page_03.QC.jpg
872b988280fa071b665ab662aa03d220
25692b9b255ca0834ca603d2e6e729c553eb713a
1051960 F20101124_AACXKN nobles_m_Page_58.jp2
46450b0a925e2ecf4c7cbd1dafef5624
2df674397d773c3e50a1597f5de095342840fe63
F20101124_AACXFR nobles_m_Page_01.tif
27babd27ae782428fce6420db93dbee2
dd05524652821fad7152628f4ff33ced72af8d13
16429 F20101124_AACXPL nobles_m_Page_07.QC.jpg
04fb780927991ee1a83e74cf03dfe7d6
96e3bc437730df795107940ed279a4e0cbc98216
121613 F20101124_AACXKO nobles_m_Page_59.jp2
3451ec450803791986f95cea78b0c38a
7e8c79abaa5c806ad1178330f357950e678878c2
20721 F20101124_AACXFS nobles_m_Page_56.jpg
c8a090dfaaad58da82cfe84deb6b6677
ac05da39405bc1d8c24d7a228c7c3774ca331a83
18327 F20101124_AACXPM nobles_m_Page_08.QC.jpg
8bd4b4c8048fe4262d146b723315dddb
db0ea9efa4255be348f4be71d68cd5c6133b7566
43163 F20101124_AACXKP nobles_m_Page_60.jp2
2804ee5f0166835f4d99c68edf119a32
fff29f5ada0299baa2c9d0f9b73ef85126c7de0d
21947 F20101124_AACXFT nobles_m_Page_36.QC.jpg
67d076938d8415ec7650542896c3ff5b
858455468be48aa9a7074c47b5b2efaee9330992
19506 F20101124_AACXPN nobles_m_Page_09.QC.jpg
91b2c669ceaee26e5d5572877279d5b1
07e0a8850bd0821e538bbb61b786149bfd9bcd13
32358 F20101124_AACXKQ nobles_m_Page_61.jp2
69623c6af69a9357a594aa4c03fe47a7
166f929cc0468e371a7a663b58201fb0b74536df
F20101124_AACXFU nobles_m_Page_16.tif
f7d8bb7d58e5eae4d972f03cc06750af
7dd64c24bcebcc5a1d3ae13c6c56f7ba3019b441
22694 F20101124_AACXPO nobles_m_Page_14.QC.jpg
9e3ab7b7e5c92b072de25f5ec9cac276
27d8990bc20b5c1423d971e0c380f34e079acc37
F20101124_AACXKR nobles_m_Page_02.tif
6c5c4f57d6d04baf4f4a5a86b9836a17
ff7050510f14c707385062bb5666c5076785d335
9077 F20101124_AACXFV nobles_m_Page_48.jp2
ded6b1880afc69dc4413fd6f069613db
cd6e6b86e7c824a52392dc1268c638ff273cb796
24323 F20101124_AACXPP nobles_m_Page_16.QC.jpg
4ba11b650d2a524736a4d898d6f5d8f9
416a407d2cde7f98998250c638acefc3315bfe3e
F20101124_AACXKS nobles_m_Page_03.tif
b56a37ed56c55f83e346a78c5e1b727e
6d3c2494445ab6557a7bfa04b2a530bb6cd2ebb7
23622 F20101124_AACXPQ nobles_m_Page_17.QC.jpg
d73c6b12d0ace8442a972eb310b55858
f628e1a6aea9be87b83e9d789261f7436f46a1f7
F20101124_AACXKT nobles_m_Page_04.tif
0480086dcbcae11b963551404ce10fc0
87ae583cfe6de6a436ce99ef90e0df8c15139d02
22427 F20101124_AACXFW nobles_m_Page_21.QC.jpg
b1136cd1941f38ad60ef9329a9b83d24
6178f1a26e3a3cd8b582a35c90bdc1800b6581f1
23084 F20101124_AACXPR nobles_m_Page_19.QC.jpg
e8048e20b33a04bc9a8b436f3dba38a7
187153f0326b53270250f2c7c97627eb2db01528
F20101124_AACXKU nobles_m_Page_05.tif
eaa985f976621c4c3cb7314bb8b22ee0
b578ab961ebed3e09c26972f7953de2f317f9422
3891 F20101124_AACXFX nobles_m_Page_53thm.jpg
a0710d67ffb031f940975dd13b44079a
9b923b2dfa7304b6c28fe096090cd296af942e8d
6385 F20101124_AACXPS nobles_m_Page_20thm.jpg
cded168826eae58bd566c461f9b3b8e6
7e7643ecfabec2cdbf2cd7a9e9d5e793f8f39494
F20101124_AACXKV nobles_m_Page_06.tif
758a939962a8fb30ecdd35bccb68e2cc
d2ea3ee6461103a8b579063f8ea9c58210bc539b
6574 F20101124_AACXFY nobles_m_Page_59thm.jpg
6870dc18f7facaa3f9886dc5cf185cc7
996b83a66accaa33f5e3d52b930b07190b99b705
22860 F20101124_AACXPT nobles_m_Page_26.QC.jpg
d771c8687f726d8a7884f69fd64deecb
7bd41104244b2a7c38420695720a82b4b8639139
F20101124_AACXKW nobles_m_Page_07.tif
68348cc0bc95f17549a7ebc086adc292
e68182baf6f6b81df19fcca4427e9ab44de0f58e
95947 F20101124_AACXFZ nobles_m_Page_30.jp2
72cb2cb9e98c8750eceb25b88eb3b99b
c8d8581fff74f58704b856befae35bc64f5aaee7
19843 F20101124_AACXPU nobles_m_Page_27.QC.jpg
6c1f74b493cae8613d36cd06723710d9
033f2a9eeffcfd48c0cddf18fa3ef7fe01e51d0a
F20101124_AACXKX nobles_m_Page_08.tif
ed72ff4bfb4e43397f940046377e85dd
b8991e394f7ecef644884a4710bd80a0b6294230
5949 F20101124_AACXPV nobles_m_Page_30thm.jpg
e9b4bc5d2c88aa24441de196275a134e
e92365d105f8b22c02078393b337def740493a16
F20101124_AACXKY nobles_m_Page_09.tif
e012f06931e02b7b5389a8b44aeb8069
0ce3e265a2ec18b80ede415be50ef425fb5a59c4
6388 F20101124_AACXPW nobles_m_Page_31thm.jpg
f81ada2d459d38c7e843bad5c92a0ee9
7d100880879e82d29e010c6f15715efdc1d6449d
71109 F20101124_AACXIA nobles_m_Page_29.jpg
85e0144dfc81724c71770efbe4dbb5ca
bf0c5d78c1a025523c269d5ddaab79519a7e7541
F20101124_AACXKZ nobles_m_Page_10.tif
d857f98f111115780f0fb0a92b69fc0e
453e854cf9a886d3e1f8df40821f733113278ee6
22794 F20101124_AACXPX nobles_m_Page_32.QC.jpg
6798899a3b78ba8c27b65ede18404ee2
5e31ffb68f9d120b11128c55bd43695e4e356739
70933 F20101124_AACXIB nobles_m_Page_31.jpg
1dea9496efc55ca89da6b59adf2e8d51
96efae4522b9f4f9bb605dbe819558c84923c6aa
5379 F20101124_AACXPY nobles_m_Page_37thm.jpg
39ebde1f58533c4c358263714856edd4
378cf6faf42ebdb3f9bf5ec5b94f52cb069823bd
68491 F20101124_AACXIC nobles_m_Page_32.jpg
bc34d3a3b4d363261f4458c6b930d912
7ad7fdde7e1fdaa601111648019f1a5addd00549
6582 F20101124_AACXNA nobles_m_Page_29thm.jpg
06a4d65826b69b403d3d1db5992ee7f9
6da24d94e0ec8bb184d09e31e7da28afb3b9b7c3
23152 F20101124_AACXPZ nobles_m_Page_40.QC.jpg
d716dc0f1c2da79ba49803d55a9dd5e0
c9c6cfeca54332892851dc76647c8f13600a0e65
59996 F20101124_AACXID nobles_m_Page_33.jpg
52f13e096a1e801b68b50affb3942262
e5f9deb34f4ab7f53a0a3dbdf57e28b951734308
1794 F20101124_AACXNB nobles_m_Page_06thm.jpg
98a38a4cb161ef7823b41a64c03dc402
73fff69bb1bac77fe2fcbf63c2e712f95ab4759d
60405 F20101124_AACXIE nobles_m_Page_34.jpg
62834b0d0b94c0792d477389f802b0d7
8c8c55aaad5fc833236142e6a22c454183b48540



PAGE 1

CONTEMPORARY GUN PO LICY AND POLICING: AN ANALYSIS OF POLICE CADET ATTITUDES TOWARD CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITTING LAWS By MATTHEW ROBIN NOBLES A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Matthew Robin Nobles

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to Angela, w ho was with me every step of the way.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my supervisory committee, Dr. Alex Piquero, Dr. Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Dr. Brian Stults, for their vast wisdom and patient assistance throughout the process. I could not have asked for more thoughtful, proficient, or effective guidance for this project. I would also like to recognize Captain Jim Murphey, Associate Director of Criminal Justice Programs, and Chief Daryl Johnston, Director of the Institute of Public Safety at Santa Fe Community College, for their kind support. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................1 Introduction: A History of Controversy.......................................................................1 Theoretical Origins of Gun Possession.........................................................................3 Concealed Guns: Deterrent or Menace?.......................................................................7 Gun Oriented Policing................................................................................................10 The Role of Police Discretion.....................................................................................14 Policy and Enforcement Challenges...........................................................................18 2 DATA AND METHODOLOGY...............................................................................20 Sample........................................................................................................................20 Method........................................................................................................................20 Dependent Variables...................................................................................................21 Direct-Response Dependent Variables................................................................21 Vignette-Response Dependent Variables............................................................23 Independent Variables................................................................................................24 Other Control Variables..............................................................................................24 3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................26 Discussion...................................................................................................................33 Limitations...........................................................................................................35 Future Research...................................................................................................37 APPENDIX A PARAMETER ESTIMATES FOR MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS....................................................................................................................40 v

PAGE 6

B POLICE CADET SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................45 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................49 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................53 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 1: Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................25 2: Overall Regression Model Fitness Tests.......................................................................29 3: Independent Effects in Reduced Stepwise Regression Models.....................................30 4: Independent Effects of Cadet Attitudes on Decision to Search.....................................33 5: Independent Samples t-Test Grouped by Survey Date..................................................38 A-1: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q15..41 A-2: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q16..41 A-3: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q25..42 A-4: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q26..42 A-5: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q29..43 A-6: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q24..43 A-7: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q24 with Additional IVs..................................................................................................44 vii

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts CONTEMPORARY GUN POLICY AND POLICING: AN ANALYSIS OF POLICE CADET ATTITUDES TOWARD CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITTING LAWS By Matthew Robin Nobles August 2005 Chair: Alex R. Piquero Major Department: Criminology, Law and Society The academic literature regarding the overall impact of concealed weapons on crime is decidedly mixed. Nonetheless, as a matter of public policy, state legislation authorizing so-called shall issue concealed weapons permits has become politically popular in the past decade. While scholars and lawmakers struggle to answer the larger questions of the effects that guns have on violence, police officers are required to confront the practical problems of enforcement on the street every day. A number of high-profile law enforcement initiatives have attempted to combat illegal guns with specialized patrols. The present study surveys attitudes of law enforcement cadets at a small academy in order to assess their relative support for concealed weapon permitting laws: do police cadets support the legislation, and what impact might these attitudes have on issues of public safety? Influence of police subcultures and the attitude-behavior link are discussed. Limitations and future research questions are addressed. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction: A History of Controversy Few topics elicit a more polarized reaction in America than that of gun control measures. American history and culture was established and nurtured on conflict, from the earliest European settlers conquest of Native Americans to our countrys emergence as a dominant superpower through two World Wars. In some ways, the American public regards guns very positively: they are viewed as necessary instruments through which such principles as freedom, honor, and civic responsibility are achieved and maintained. Yet undoubtedly, guns figure prominently in the commission of many types of violent crime and are denounced by some as the means by which a new public health epidemic has emerged: homicide is the leading cause of death for young black males in our country. As a matter of public policy, gun control is fervently defended by some and just as passionately decried by others. The implications of gun control policy are no less serious than life and death an irresponsible approach to the problem of gun proliferation has the potential to physically endanger or protect millions of Americans, depending upon which ideological camp is presenting the empirical evidence. Unfortunately, the politicians who directly control gun policy require quick answers that are popular with constituents, which lead to questionable policies based on questionable causal theories on how guns and crime are related. 1

PAGE 10

2 The academic community has never reached a solid consensus on the empirical link between guns and crime, in part because the problem is so complex, and in part because the implications are so controversial. Much of the research that seeks to address issues of guns and gun control, however nobly undertaken, seems to become immediately vulnerable to political attack in the media from whichever special interest group is opposed to the findings. Both sides are involved in a propaganda war supporting their particular beliefs, which affects voters and lawmakers, ultimately shaping policy. There are only a precious few points on which both sides agree; one of them is that something must be done to address violent crime in America. Since private gun ownership seems inexorably linked with public policy on gun violence, any initiatives must consider both legal and illegal guns in the equation. Therefore, if the objective of legislatures is to reduce violent crime by dealing with guns, then the most balanced policy approach is one in which any potential value of legal, defensive gun possession is preserved while illegal firearms and those who broker or utilize them are efficiently targeted by law enforcement. Questions remain about how the political and legislative ideals mesh with the practical realities of law enforcement. Do police officers approve of concealed weapon permit laws because of their perceived deterrent value, or do they disapprove because the law requires more work and may present an additional element of danger? Are these attitudes stable over time, or do they vary with street experience? Do these attitudes influence the decision to stop a suspect, perform a search, or make an arrest? The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between concealed weapons permitting laws and police attitudes. Using pilot survey data from police cadets in a mid

PAGE 11

3 sized southeastern city, we can lay the groundwork for an investigation of the interplay between police and contemporary gun policy. Theoretical Origins of Gun Possession Considerable scholarship has been devoted to issues of gun ownership. Understanding the psychological and sociological underpinnings of the gun phenomenon is a complex endeavor with many disparate causes. Any meaningful critique of current gun policy in America must consider the various uses and abuses of guns on the part of the public at large. Where does the impetus to own or carry a gun really originate? How are the processes different for legal vs. illegal ownership? Are these processes stable over time, and how strong are contextual influences? Before understanding why gun ownership (and to a lesser degree, gun carrying) behaviors are so prevalent in the United States, it may be useful to examine the demographic profile of a typical gun owner. Gun ownership can serve as a dependent or independent variable according to the research question, but for the purposes of assessing attitudes, gun ownership may be reasonably assumed to be correlated with pro-gun opinions. Survey data from the early 1970s described the average gun owner as Southern, rural, white, Protestant, and upper-class (Wright & Marston, 1975). Few subsequent studies seem to have seriously challenged or fundamentally changed these basic classifications. More recent inquiries have drawn conclusions about gun ownership and attitudes between males and females, with evidence indicating that males are more likely to hold pro-gun beliefs in terms of the right to possess guns, the role that guns play in stimulating crime, and the ability of a gun to protect its owner from victimization (Branscombe et al., 1991). Comparisons of gun control attitudes between countries that have very strict gun laws (United Kingdom) and very permissive gun laws (United

PAGE 12

4 States) shows that similar attitudinal gender effects are present despite the context and political landscape (Cooke & Puddifoot, 2000). In a study that deals specifically with attitudes related to concealed weapons, Kleck (1996) finds that crime rates and prior victimization does not predict support for gun permits. Interestingly, he shows that greater support for gun permits occurs among liberals, Jews, people with more education, people with higher income, and people who do not own guns or hunt. These contradictions make synthesis and interpretation of the respective findings difficult. Models of gun ownership vary with respect to the theoretical and practical factors being examined. Most investigators seem to agree that there is no single theory that can explain all gun-related behaviors. Cao, Cullen, and Link (1997), for instance, offer an empirical test of six main explanations for gun ownership. They focus on the distinction between firearms owned for sport and those owned for protection, a potentially important distinction with regard to gun-carrying behavior. In their study, they specify six models of ownership that are not mutually exclusive: economic resources, socialization, racial loathing, fear and victimization, collective security, and conservative ideology. In the economic resources approach, firearms ownership is a result of the availability of the financial means to do so. The socialization model suggests that being indoctrinated into a gun culture, being from the South, or being highly educated may influence your attitude toward guns. Racial loathing frames the issue in terms of white vs. non-white power control. Fear and victimization concerns the perceptions about crime and feelings of vulnerability. Collective security describes succinctly an individuals faith in police and the criminal justice system to maintain civil order.

PAGE 13

5 Finally, conservative ideology and related political affiliations have proven to be a significant predictor of gun ownership in past studies. Using survey data, Cao and colleagues find a number of results that they suggest are surprising, including an inverse relationship between gun ownership and prior victimization. With respect to the possession of guns for protective vs. sport reasons, they demonstrate that individuals who own guns for protective purposes are influenced by the socialization model, introduction into a gun subculture, and crime-related attitudes and feelings about safety, while sport gun owners are influenced likewise by the socialization model and gun subcultures. The influence of peers is an important factor that has been examined in prior gun research. Most approaches to peer influence regarding guns take the form of a subcultural explanation for how individuals become acclimated to favorable definitions of guns. In terms of criminological theory, Akers (1973) stated that social learning consisted of differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation. These concepts can be utilized to explain any behavior, not just criminal or deviant behaviors. In this case, differential association occurs within the context of peers or family members who own and use guns. Definitions favorable to gun ownership and possibly imitation are followed by differential reinforcement. The indoctrination into a gun subculture is not difficult to understand with respect to family members or friends who share similar hobbies (e.g., hunting). Social learning variables have seen significant empirical attention in the literature. Lizotte and Bordua (1980) write extensively on the topic of subcultural theories of gun ownership. Their regression analyses include a number of social learning variables,

PAGE 14

6 including whether members of the family hunt or shoot together. They conclude that gun ownership for sport is indeed subcultural in nature, but protective ownership is not. Oddly, they further discover that sport and protective gun ownership is apparently an independent phenomenon, with no joint occurrence. Findings from Cao et al. (1997) diverge from this conclusion, stating that both sporting and protective gun owners were influenced by social learning variables. Social learning and the role of peers can also be applied in the context of illegal gun behaviors. Dealing specifically with carrying guns rather than ownership, Lizotte et al. (2000) demonstrate that gang membership predicts gun-carrying among young adolescents, while illegal peer gun ownership and involvement in drugs predicts gun-carrying among older adolescents. Participation in a criminal subculture may also lead to higher incidence of crimes where guns are the subject rather than simply a facilitator, including crimes such as gun theft. Wright (1986) concludes from his survey of incarcerated felons that the criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply. Wrights findings specify that only about one-sixth of handguns used in the commission of a felony were legally acquired, demonstrating that the problem of controlling criminal access to concealable guns is rather substantial. Investigation into the gun phenomenon has also produced some intriguing findings with respect to potential risk factors for criminal offending. Schwaner et al. (1999) provide an examination of factors predicting the decision to become licensed to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Kentucky. In their analysis, they use demographic variables such as age, sex, and education to predict which factors influence

PAGE 15

7 the decision for individuals to acquire a license. The results show a negative and significant relationship between the dependent variable (decision to become licensed) and the independent variables (age, education, sex [0=male], and household size). The only variable to show a moderated effect in their model was the respondents level of income. Interestingly, however, Schwaner and colleagues demonstrate that the same four factors also predict an intervening variable, heavy drinking, that has a positive and significant (p < .001) effect on the decision to become licensed. In other words, people who reported drinking more were more likely to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon in this sample, presumably increasing weapon availability for these individuals across a range of situations. While this may be only an artifact of other demographic variables (e.g., young males are likely to be higher in both measures), it raises interesting questions about selection effects and certain correlates of gun possession Concealed Guns: Deterrent or Menace? The inspiration to possess firearms for personal and property defense is not new, and scientific investigation on the potential value of legal firearms is fairly positive and conclusive in showing that guns are widely used in real-world defensive scenarios. Results from the National Self-Defense Survey put the estimated number of defensive gun use incidents at around 2.5 million per year, many of which are reported to be located in close proximity to the victims home (Kleck & Gertz, 1995). As for their effectiveness, Kleck and Gertz (1998) observe, the empirical literature is unanimous in portraying defensive gun use as effective, in the sense that gun-wielding victim are less likely to be injured, lose property, or otherwise have crimes completed against them than victims who either do nothing to resist or who resist without weapons.

PAGE 16

8 The issue of guns in public places is much more contentious. A great deal of scrutiny lately has monitored the issue of right-to-carry (RTC) laws, statutory provisions that remove discretionary powers on the part of local law enforcement in denying individuals a permit to carry a concealed handgun, absent a compelling legal reason to the contrary. Research by Lott and Mustard (1997) contributed a very controversial finding to the gun policy debate. Using cross-sectional time series data, the authors were able to demonstrate quantitatively that passage of RTC laws worked to reduce the rates of homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults (more guns = less crime). In theory, the drop in crime was attributable to a deterrence model: RTC laws passed More carry permits issued More guns legally carried Greater incidence of defensive gun use Increase in general deterrence Not surprisingly, scholars in various fields have carefully and thoroughly debunked Lott and Mustards findings with regard to the impact of RTC laws on violent crime. Many subsequent publications found problems with Lott and Mustards original data, which has since been extended, replaced, or otherwise improved; others faulted the statistical methods behind Lott and Mustards results, claiming that coding errors substantially influenced their regressions (Donohue, 2003)1. Some investigators manage to temporarily sidestep the politics of the issue and focus on the empirical questions at hand. A most compelling analysis refuting Lott and Mustards position comes from Kovandzic and Marvell (2003), who used new county-level data on actual concealed-handgun permit holders (compared to Lott and Mustards data on permits issued) to conclude that using the most direct measure of lawful gun 1 Donohues reaction essay (2003) also calls into question Lotts professional ethics, in effect accusing him of promoting a pro-gun agenda with complicity from the NRA and commenting that Lott is suspected of falsifying survey data dealing with rates of defensive gun use.

PAGE 17

9 carrying readily available, the number of citizens with valid concealed-handgun permits, we find no credible statistical evidence that permit rate growth (and presumably more lawful gun carrying) leads to substantial reductions in violent crime, especially homicide. Based on the work done since Lott and Mustards initial study, RTC laws have been shown, at best, to have no effect on crime. At worst, they may slightly escalate rates of violence and increase likelihood of lethality. For their part, lawmakers in many jurisdictions seem to be siding with Lott and Mustards interpretation of the role that RTC laws play. At present, 44 states have some type of concealed weapon permitting process, while 34 of those have RTC laws in effect. Additionally, some small municipalities have apparently taken the concept to its logical extremes by mandating gun ownership through local ordinances. Tiny Geuda Springs, Kansas, population 212, made national news when it began requiring residents to own firearms in November 2003. Regardless of the potential deterrent value of guns, pro-gun advocates argue that gun possession by lawful citizens should not be restricted as a matter of principle, and this attitude has become very pervasive thanks in part to a powerful lobby backed by the National Rifle Association. The NRA has succeeded in promoting private gun ownership as a Constitutional entitlement, although scholarly opinion on the applicability of the Second Amendment to private citizens does not always support that interpretation (see Cress, 1984, for a thorough historical examination). In theory, lawful gun owners with legal guns are not the source of the epidemic of gun violence (Lugwig, 2003); in fact, existing research suggests that defensive gun possession can be an asset to citizens and police alike (Kleck & Gertz, 1995). Therefore, in order to reduce violent gun crimes, gun

PAGE 18

10 policy must be balanced to combat illegal guns on the street while continuing to tolerate possession of legal guns. Gun Oriented Policing Despite the intellectual tug-of-war in the academic and political arenas, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun camps agree on the basic tenet that guns should not be generally available to certain classes of people, including adults who have a history of violent offending and unsupervised minors.2 To this end, policing strategies have evolved to target guns and gun law violators as a proxy for violent offending, mostly in urban settings with predominately minority populations where higher rates of violent crime exist. If the supply-side logic of gun crime holds true, more seizures of illegal guns and more arrests of illegal gun possessors will lead to a decrease in the quantity of illegal guns involved in street-level acts of violence, similar to a public health model in which disease vectors are controlled to prevent contagion. Consequently, some police forces have developed a strategy of gun oriented policing, which integrates problem-oriented and community-oriented policing with special attention to illegal weapons. The first widely recognized application of gun oriented policing (GOP) was the Kansas City Gun Experiment in the early 1990s. The design was modeled after the body of work examining directed police patrols in geographic hot spots identified as having high crime rates. Police presence was increased in areas reported to have the highest crime rates, and officers were authorized to concentrate fully on patrols with special emphasis on finding illegal guns, eliminating the officers responsibility to respond to 2 Federal and state laws impose restrictions on possession of guns generally and concealed weapons specifically for several general classes of people, including individuals wanted on outstanding warrants, juveniles, illegal aliens, the mentally ill, individuals with prior convictions for domestic violence, and those with a documented history of drug or alcohol abuse.

PAGE 19

11 routine service calls. If police could control illegal guns in the high-crime areas, they theorized that they could affect the rates of gun-related violence (Sherman & Rogan, 1995). The theory behind the Kansas City initiative functioned on two levels. First, increased visibility of police would provide general deterrence while aggressive enforcement and targeting high risk individuals would raise the number of police encounters, thereby causing an increase in specific deterrence for those deemed more likely to engage in violent crime. Second, the GOP technique worked on supply-side incapacitation basis: fewer illegal guns meant less gun crime because the enabling mechanism was no longer as readily available. Results from the study were highly encouraging. The increased police patrols resulted in a 65% increase in seizures of illegal guns within the high crime districts and the same areas saw a 49% decrease in violent gun crime, while the control group reported fewer gun seizures and a slight increase in crime (Sherman & Rogan, 1995). A replication of the Kansas City experiment was conducted in two separate beats in Indianapolis in 1997. Many design aspects were similar: the Indianapolis police increased traffic patrols in high-crime areas and began targeting individuals who were believed to be high risk gun offenders using stop-and-frisk techniques. As for the targeted districts, one predominately minority neighborhood and one predominately white neighborhood, both high in violent crime, were chosen for the experimental GOP patrols. The results of the Indianapolis replication were mixed. One of the beats reported similar results to the Kansas City experiment in terms of the effects of new gun-specific patrols on homicide, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, while the other beat reported

PAGE 20

12 no effect from the new patrols. Investigators hypothesized that differences in the policing techniques (e.g., more traffic stops vs. more stop-and-frisk encounters) or the racial composition of the targeted districts could account for the discrepancy (McGarrell et al., 2001). Nonetheless, the results from Indianapolis demonstrate at least partial support for the potential of GOP strategies to impact violent crime rates. Perhaps the best-known implementation of a GOP strategy occurred in New York City in the late 1990s. Beginning in 1994, NYPD Commissioner William Bratton instituted a widely publicized, multi-pronged zero tolerance campaign designed to address problems of violent crime. The NYPD approach included a specialized Street Crime Unit tasked with aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and active pursuit of illegal weapons. NYPD made over 46,000 arrests on gun-related offenses and confiscated more than 56,000 guns from 1994 to 1997. The results of New York Citys efforts to enforce a zero tolerance GOP policy have been shown to be at least partially accountable for that jurisdictions rapid and dramatic decrease in homicide rates during the 1990s. Fagan, Zimring, and Kim (1998) studied the phenomenon and concluded that the precipitous drop in crime rates were not fully explained by extraordinarily high rates returning to baseline, and further documented that the decrease in violent crime could not be explained by population fluctuations or rates of drug use over the period of interest. Zimring and Fagan (2000) concede, however, that the evidence for the decline in crime rates was only circumstantially associated with the change in policing policies in New York City, and comment on the difficulty of accurately measuring such trends in times of general rate declines.

PAGE 21

13 Results from other jurisdictions suggest that alternative approaches may also hold promise. Greenes (1999) examination of NYPDs crackdowns states that well-understood methods of community oriented policing and problem oriented policing produced similar crime rate declines in San Diego, but utilized a more benign police presence focused on cooperative efforts rather than an aggressive targeting strategy. The primary negative implication of a zero tolerance policy is that it may damage credibility of the police in community building initiatives, which is apparently an ongoing concern for many urban police forces. However, nationwide policy analyses raise questions over the extent to which community and problem oriented policing programs have been fully and correctly implemented, and further indicate that community and problem oriented policing have not proven to be effective tools for combating urban violence (MacDonald, 2002). New and innovative programs not involving direct-patrol strategies have also shown some promise. One such initiative carried forth by St. Louis police, the Firearm Suppression Program, is premised on obtaining parental consent for searches and seizures at the homes of suspected juvenile offenders. Initial reports demonstrated that the program succeeded in confiscating several hundred guns and managed to do so with minimal community resistance (Rosenfeld & Decker, 1996). Technological advances also make policing guns more effective, as new and more sophisticated methods of detecting concealed weapons become technically feasible, less expensive, easier to deploy, and supportable under current case law (Kamin, 1996). Nevertheless, the bulk of anti-gun policing seems destined, at least in the near future, to occur in the traditional fashion.

PAGE 22

14 Application of gun legislation may result in indirect effects for police personnel. The Massachusetts Bartley-Fox gun control law, imposed in the 1970s to deter casual gun carriers who regard concealed weapons as a criminal lifestyle, is one such case. In their analysis of Bartley-Foxs short-term effects in Boston, Pierce and Bowers (1981) suggest that the laws much-publicized unconditional one-year prison term increased public awareness of the need to report gun-related crimes that could be considered less serious (e.g., assault), and reporting of gun assaults went up concomitant with Bartley-Fox. The practical implications for police include greater workload in responding to calls for service, writing reports, performing investigations, and making arrests, all of which may influence the cycle of officer attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, the legislative emphasis on appearing tough on guns logically necessitates in new initiatives for police to pursue. In some cases this may result in new responsibilities for patrol officers (e.g., frisking) which heretofore were discretionary. Gun control laws are intuitively, and in some ways inexorably, associated with the role of police. Evidence suggests that gun-oriented policing strategies can be effective means to controlling illegal weapons and reducing crime, but the evaluation of these strategies (and perhaps formation of future strategies) may be aided by better understanding the factors that police officers consider in the regular performance of their duties. The Role of Police Discretion All policing strategies eventually fall to the street-level officer to be enforced. Conventional wisdom suggests that police officers have considerable discretionary powers in conducting their duties, and that the discretion varies depending on situational factors (e.g., the seriousness of a crime). However, the literature on policing has often

PAGE 23

15 challenged the conventional thinking about how officers work. Criminological research has addressed issues of police discretion from a number of different approaches. One route to better understanding behavior is to better understand attitudes. Worden (1989) provides an empirical assessment of the police attitude-behavior link, in which he concludes that evidence demonstrates consistent support for situational factors in decision-making, but very little support for the commonly assumed influence of officer attitudes (i.e., what the officer brings to the situation). Worden posits in his discussion, however, that situational and attitudinal explanations are not wrong but simply incomplete, (pp. 703) suggesting complexity in the theoretical constructs and operational environments alike. He further notes the relative lack of empirical studies on the influence of officer attitudes on behavior, leaving open the plausibility of the police attitude-behavior link. The further examination of police attitudes may be illuminating, both at the individual and at the organizational levels of analysis. One theoretical possibility is that officer discretion is a reflection of officers' attributes, either directly or indirectly. The direct route specifies that personally held values or opinions, such as being conservative with respect to crime and punishment, lead to differential enforcement. A survey of British constables finds that police socialization and training may influence these attitudes, making clear implications for better and more thorough training, as well as seeking a better understanding of police subcultures (Fielding & Fielding, 1991). The indirect route suggests that perceived community reactions to police are predicated on officer attributes. In this way, the proportional use of discretion might be related to perceptions of resistance, which may in turn be influenced by officer characteristics like

PAGE 24

16 gender or race. In the case of gender, at least, there is evidence that attitudes do not play such a critical role. A study by Worden (1993) examined conflicting assumptions about women in policing based on sociological theory, and found that male and female officers differ very little in their attitudes and perceptions about occupational factors such as perceived community cooperation. Another possibility is that police culture influences occupational norms, which dictate behavior on patrol. Studies of larger police culture spanning multiple departments provide evidence against the assumptions of common values, attitudes, and norms, and reveal that officers possess a wide variety of perspectives on their occupation that do not fit discreet patterns (Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000). This finding is especially important when it relates to the correct implementation of new policing policies, such as community oriented policing, which depend in large part on the effort put forth by individual officers. If officer attitudes and values conflict with the policy, one might expect them to uphold the initiative out of a sense of duty or obligation, but the policy may fail to meet its goals and objectives in the long run because it was not implemented or supported to its fullest potential. If police officers possess discretion and use it in varying degrees depending on situational factors, one might assume that incidents that are more serious would involve less discretion, especially when police have an explicit mandate under the law to enforce certain violations. Non-serious violations, such as traffic violations, are acknowledged as being acceptable situations for use of officer discretion, and may even serve a positive function with respect to preserving organizational norms and promoting officer autonomy (Lundman, 1979). However, even in cases of clear obligation, empirical evidence

PAGE 25

17 suggests that reporting serious violations such as child abuse still involves a fair amount of police discretion, which varies with legal factors, such as knowledge of statutory law, and extralegal factors, such as the race of the family (Willis & Wells, 1988). If police discretion plays a role in whatever degree for non-serious as well as serious crimes, it makes sense that the examination of any particular police behavior should require a basic understanding of the attitudes, norms, and values that may influence selective enforcement. The nature of the officer and the crime are not the only deciding factors in discretionary behaviors. Terrill and Reisig (2003) study the value of neighborhood context in use-of-force decisions, which have been traditionally critiqued through dissection of psychological or organizational processes. Their finding is that neighborhood context does matter, even when intuitive factors (suspect resistance, officer training, etc.) are controlled. To the extent that officers decisions and enforcement discretion in use-of-force scenarios varies with the neighborhood setting, logically there may be similar effects for different types of discretion. The value of context is especially relevant in light of past gun oriented policing experiments, in which gun crime hot spots were targeted for special enforcement. Are officers more likely to conduct vehicle searches and seize weapons in high-crime areas? Conversely, are rural officers less likely to enforce concealed weapons laws when violations occur in a small-town (and low-crime) context? Fortunately, there is at least one study that addresses police discretion in rural contexts. Eliason (2003) surveys game wardens in Kentucky and finds wide use of discretion that is influenced by factors such as the seriousness of the offense, intent of the violator, and prior criminal history of the

PAGE 26

18 violator. Interestingly, Eliason also queries the wardens on their own history of related deviance, and finds that the wardens past history of wildlife law violation is associated with greater use of discretion. In summary, police discretion is critical to implementation of policies. The amount and nature of discretion, as well its predictors or mediators, is a complex question with no straightforward answer. However, past research suggests that police discretion is real, may relate to attitudes and norms, exists for serious as well as non-serious crimes, and varies with many individual and situational factors. The applicability of police discretion to issues pertaining to guns is a question that deserves more thorough empirical attention. Some research addresses this phenomenon by attempting, with some difficulty, to operationalize vague concepts such as police interest in enforcing gun laws (Moore, 1980). To date, no study has focused on police cadets and the inherent training and socialization issues spurred by contemporary gun policy. Policy and Enforcement Challenges The basic problem with guns is not that the available research is conflicted on whether guns are good or bad for society; indeed, that is a value judgment likely to be influenced by an individuals geographical context, socialization, media influence, economic means, and a host of other factors independent from opinions formed by consuming literature on the subject (Cao, Cullen, & Link, 1997; Dowler, 2002). Moreover, guns are firmly entrenched in American culture and are unlikely to be phased out on a national scale any time soon, so the moralistic view of good versus evil is not fruitful in terms of adjusting policy. Rather, the problem is that the empirical research that does exist on the topics of gun use, gun ownership, and gun control does not seem to

PAGE 27

19 form a consensus on exactly what role guns play in commission or defense of crime. There are many contradictory findings to be considered. The disarray in the academic community on issues of gun policy goes beyond political agendas and moral judgments. Zimring (1995) observes that matters of gun policy have only recently become interesting to social scientists, but remarks that matters of interest to gun scholars span many academic disciplines, necessitating multiple theoretical approaches and solutions, each of which must be carefully considered and tested. Not only do different researchers and different disciplines disagree about guns, sometimes even results from the same study can be puzzling. Fagan (2003) points out that even reports demonstrating that guns are not effective in a crime prevention/deterrence role nevertheless go on to identify positive effects of legislation supporting gun possession, effectively confusing the message to policy makers. Without such a consensus, deliberation about the most suitable direction for future gun policy should be regarded cautiously at best. Policing guns is particularly problematic, and police officers are often being asked to do the impossible: provide a consistent enforcement presence that simultaneously preserves lawful gun ownership and deters illegal gun use, in light of political and academic controversies over what, if anything, must be changed to control crime. Their use of discretion in matters of gun crime is an integral part of understanding the whole of gun-related behaviors.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER 2 DATA AND METHODOLOGY As previously stated, the goal of this research is to explore the nature of police attitudes toward concealed weapon permitting legislation. Such an exploration necessitates direct queries about police attitudes, as well as an investigation into the demographic and situational determinants that are empirically associated with officer attitudes. This investigation takes place at the individual level of analysis, examining the nature and predictors of officer attitudes. Sample The subjects surveyed were police cadets at a law enforcement training academy in a small southeastern city (approximate population 110,000). The group as a whole was representative of a typical police sample with respect to their backgrounds. In particular, all of the surveyed individuals passed a rigorous screening process that included a criminal history check and drug test prior to their academy admission. These factors become important when considering the degree to which attitudes regarding concealed weapons are influenced by the past behavior (criminal vs. non-criminal) of the possessor. The survey response rate was 85%, and the sample size upon which the analysis is based was 68. Method Since no publicly available data source offered measures of the attitudes and opinions of police with the desired degree of detail, an original questionnaire was developed specifically for this study. The instrument was intended to gather 20

PAGE 29

21 demographic and situational data, as well as to quickly assess individual respondents attitudes pertaining to concealed weapons legislation. Prior to its administration, the instrument was reviewed by the training director for the academy in order to critique the surveys terminology and ease of response. The validated questionnaire was then distributed to two separate groups of police cadets at the beginning of their class period on February 10, 2005, and April 4, 2005, and completed surveys were collected anonymously at the end of class. The two different dates reflect a scheduling convenience only, not an attempt at longitudinal comparison. The data discussed here are cross-sectional in nature, and there was no overlapping of participants across the two administration dates. Dependent Variables The dependent variable for this analysis is cadets attitudes toward concealed weapons legislation. This concept was operationalized several different ways on the survey instrument in an effort to provide different approaches to the question at hand. Seven dependent measures of interest can be divided into two logical sub-types. The first type was a direct question asking for the individuals attitude or opinion pertaining to a given type of gun legislation or its effects. The second type was an indirect question asking the individual to read a hypothetical vignette and then specify which behavior would be most likely for him or her in that situation. Each dependent variable featured a Likert-style response continuum from more to less with a neutral choice included for every question. The variables are described in detail below. Direct-Response Dependent Variables Respondents were asked their opinions of concealed weapons laws, ranging from = strongly disapprove to = strongly approve (Q15). This item is intended to be as

PAGE 30

22 straightforward as possible, and provides the foundation for the individuals attitude schema on concealed weapons. Subjects were asked their opinion of the effect of concealed weapons laws on violent crime, ranging from = more likely to decrease violence to = more likely to increase violence (Q16). The pairing of a consequence (violence) to the more abstract notion of the legislation forces the respondent to more fully consider the impact of his or her position. Respondents were asked their opinion of concealed weapon licenses holders, ranging from = more likely to decrease violence to = more likely to increase violence (Q29). This item differs from the previous measure by making the distinction between concealed weapons laws vs. concealed weapons holders, potentially revealing a bias. In theory, concealed weapons laws (an abstraction) and people who carry concealed weapons (an application) share a fundamental construct that is intended to promote lawful conduct. If weapons holders are judged differently than weapons laws, perhaps the survey subjects are expressing doubt in the practicality of weapon-carrying behaviors in real-world scenarios. Subjects were asked their opinion on whether concealed weapons laws made their duties more difficult, ranging from 1 = much more difficult to = much less difficult (Q25). Since the surveyed population consists entirely of police cadets rather than experienced officers, this item is capturing the individuals expectations rather than his or her history. This item may yield additional insight with a comparative sample of veteran police officers.

PAGE 31

23 Respondents were asked whether they would change existing concealed weapons laws, ranging from = much more restrictive to = much less restrictive (Q26). Modification of existing laws is not the purview of police, except in the grander sense that each of us has an opportunity to participate in the legislative process via elections in a representative democracy. However, asking the cadet what he or she would do with that responsibility invites him or her to examine the issue from a different perspective, as an architect rather than an enforcer of the law. Vignette-Response Dependent Variables Subjects were provided with the following mini-vignette: Consider this hypothetical scenario. While out on patrol, you pull over a car for a minor traffic violation, such as speeding. When you approach the driver, he states that he is in possession of a concealed weapon and that he is licensed to carry the weapon. Two follow-up questions asked the respondent of the likelihood that they would write the offender a traffic ticket, ranging from 1 = more likely to = less likely, and the likelihood that they would request to search the offenders vehicle, ranging from = more likely to = less likely. In both cases, the neutral response read = equally likely, regardless of this information. The vignette items approach the boundary that exists between officer attitudes and officer behaviors, perhaps moving as closely as possible to recording behaviors without actually observing them. Functionally, these items are advantageous because the cadets being surveyed have never been in the scenario described, therefore a similarly oriented direct-response item (e.g., Have you ever) would not be appropriate. Another potential methodological concern is the relatively low base rate for weapons violations as compared to more routine occurrences such as traffic violations, simple assaults, and

PAGE 32

24 petty property crime. Utilizing the hypothetical scenario allows greater flexibility than direct observation of officer behaviors, which may be difficult to capture because the convergence of factors described in the scenario may be infrequent and the interpretation may be subject to observer bias. Independent Variables The independent measures of interest deal with a variety of experiential factors relating to experience with guns generally and concealed weapons specifically. Respondents were asked if they had prior military experience, (recoded to 0=No, 1=Yes) (Q11d); if they were a member of the NRA (0=No, 1=Yes) (Q13); if members of their immediate family belonged to the NRA (0=No, 1=Yes) (Q14); if they had ever personally carried a concealed weapon (0=No, 1=Yes) (Q17); if they had ever possessed a license for carrying a concealed weapon (0=No, 1=Yes) (Q21); and if they had ever personally come into contact with legal (Q27d) or illegal (Q28d) concealed weapon holders (recoded to 0=No, 1=Yes). Other Control Variables Several demographic factors were selected as additional control variables for the regression models, including Q1, respondents age group (age 19-29 [coded 0] and ages 31+ [coded 1]); Q2, gender (male [coded 0] vs. female [coded 1]); Q3, race (white [coded 0] vs. non-white [coded 1]); and Q4, ethnicity (non-Hispanic [coded 0] vs. Hispanic [coded 1]). Finally, a dummy variable was used to control for the survey administration date (2/10/05 [coded 0] vs. 4/4/05 [coded 1]). The univariate analysis of the samples demographic and control variables reveals a trend toward younger cadets (62.7% in the 19-29 age group vs. 37.3% in the 30+ group), more males than females (72.5% vs. 27.5%), more whites than non-whites

PAGE 33

25 (70.6% vs. 29.4%), and more non-Hispanics than Hispanics (90.2% vs. 9.8%). Fewer respondents had military experience (23.5%), and fewer were themselves members of the NRA (9.8%) or had family members who belonged to the NRA (17.6%). A minority of the sample reported carrying a concealed weapon in the past (23.5%) and fewer reported being licensed to do so (13.7%). Descriptive statistics for all variables are available in Table 1. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics Min. Max. Mean SD Dependent Variables Q15: Opinion of concealed weapons laws 1 5 3.88 .913 Q16: CCW laws effect on violent crime 1 3 2.31 .874 Q23: Hypo: write ticket? 2 3 2.99 .122 Q24: Dummy Hypo: search vehicle? 0 1 .32 .471 Q25: CCW laws make duties more difficult? 1 5 2.70 .723 Q26: Restrictions on CCW laws? 1 5 2.53 .922 Q29: Opinion of concealed weapons holders 1 3 2.25 .910 Independent and Control Variables Q11: Dummy Military experience (0=None) 0 1 .24 .427 Q13: NRA member? (1=No) 1 2 1.16 .371 Q14: Family NRA members? (1=No) 1 2 1.21 .410 Q17: Carried concealed weapon? (1=No) 1 2 1.33 .473 Q21: License for concealed weapon? (1=No) 1 2 1.18 .386 Q27: Dummy Contacts with legal CCW holders (0=No) 0 1 .60 .493 Q28: Dummy Contacts with illegal CCW holders (0=No) 0 1 .45 .502 Q1: Dummy Age Group (0=19-29 years) 0 1 .63 .486 Q2: Dummy Gender (0=Male) 0 1 .22 .418 Q3: Dummy Race (0=White) 0 1 .24 .427 Q4: Dummy Ethnicity (0=Non-Hispanic) 0 1 .10 .306 DATE: Dummy Survey Date (0=2/10/05) 0 1 .24 .427

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Cadets from this sample seem generally in favor of concealed weapons policies. The majority (70.2%) responded that they approve or strongly approve of concealed weapons laws, while only 4.5% reported that they disapprove or strongly disapprove; 25.4% responded that they were neutral. A majority (55.9%) reported that concealed weapons laws made their jobs no more difficult, but many more cadets reported that the laws would make their jobs somewhat more difficult or much more difficult (33.8%) than somewhat less difficult or much less difficult (7.4%). When asked what their position would be if they could control weapons laws, the largest group of cadets (48.5%) reported that they would make the laws somewhat more restrictive or much more restrictive, while many (42.6%) said they would make the laws no more restrictive, and only 8.8% reported that they would make the laws somewhat less restrictive or much less restrictive. When asked about their opinions regarding the effects of concealed weapons laws on violent crime, the majority (57.4%) reported that they believed the laws had no effect, while 26.5% reported that they believed the laws decreased violence, and 14.7% reported that they believed the laws increased violence. These trends were consistent with reported opinions of concealed weapons holders, for which 55.9% believed there was no effect on violence, 30.9% believed violence was decreased, and 11.8% believed violence increased. 26

PAGE 35

27 The hypothetical vignette presented to cadets was designed to assess their likely course of action in the event of encountering a citizen with a legal concealed weapon on a routine traffic stop. Two follow-up questions were asked, pertaining to a request to search the vehicle and the decision to write a traffic citation. The majority of cadets (62.7%) reported no effect in the decision to request a vehicle search, but the remaining cadets were divided on the decision: 19.6% were more likely to request a search, while 17.6% were less likely to request a search. With regard to the decision to write a traffic citation, the overwhelming majority (98.5%) reported no effect in either direction with respect to the presence of a concealed weapon. Consequently, this outcome variable was eliminated from further analyses. In summary, police cadets surveyed in this sample favor concealed weapons laws generally, but the data indicate that many believe that concealed weapons make their job more difficult and that many would make the laws more restrictive if they could. Further, the majority of cadets believed that concealed weapons laws and concealed weapon holders have no effect on violent crime, but more cadets believed that the phenomenon decreased violence than increased it. Finally, it appears that the majority of cadets surveyed report that their decision to request a vehicle search or write a traffic ticket in light of their knowledge about the presence of a concealed weapon was largely unchanged. The next portion of the analysis examines the predictors of concealed weapons perceptions. Further analysis employed multinomial logistic regression due to the multiple categories used for each dependent variable. A multiple regression was estimated for each dependent variable using the same independent and control variables:

PAGE 36

28 age, gender, race, ethnicity, military experience, NRA membership, family NRA membership, past history of concealed carry, possession of license for concealed carry, the number of contacts with legal/licensed concealed weapons holders, the number of contacts with illegal/unlicensed concealed weapons holders, and the date of the survey. Based on established demographic and subcultural characteristics of gun owners (Wright & Marston, 1975; Caento, 1979; Cao, Link, & Cullen, 1997), the expected profile of a typical pro-carry respondent is one who is middle-aged, male, white, non-Hispanic, has no military experience, and who may be exposed to a pro-gun subculture (either legal or illegal). Prior history of concealed carry and possession of a license to do so are expected to be significant predictors of present pro-gun attitudes. Regression models were estimated using stepwise backwards-elimination to identify the independent variables that exhibited a significant effect on each dependent variable of interest. Stepwise removal was accomplished by testing the likelihood ratio of each factor until only statistically significant independent variables remained. Overall model fitness was tested by comparing -2 log likelihood values for the null model (in which all parameter coefficients are zero) against the final model. The chi-square statistics and significance values are reported in Table 2. In all cases, the selected models outperformed the null models in predicting the dependent variable. Follow-up analysis of independent effects in each model demonstrates that various factors were statistically significant stepwise predictors for different models. Results are presented in Table 3, and parameter estimates for each model are shown in Appendix A.

PAGE 37

29 Table 2: Overall Regression Model Fitness Tests Model -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Q15: Opinion of Concealed Weapons Laws Intercept Only (Null Model) 102.625 Final Model 71.635 30.990** 9 Q16: Concealed Weapons Laws Effect on Violent Crime Intercept Only (Null Model) 86.032 Final Model 63.474 22.558** 4 Q25: Concealed Weapons Laws Make Duties More Difficult? Intercept Only (Null Model) 78.129 Final Model 46.492 31.637* 16 Q26: Restrictions on Concealed Weapons Laws? Intercept Only (Null Model) 81.285 Final Model 59.068 22.217** 8 Q29: Concealed Weapons Holders Effect on Violent Crime Intercept Only (Null Model) 77.262 Final Model 65.316 11.945* 4 Q24: Hypothetical Vignette: Request Search of CCW Holders Vehicle? Intercept Only (Null Model) 90.054 Final Model 67.196 22.858** 6 = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01 Gender appears to be a consistent predictor of outcomes for almost all dependent variables, although it is not always the strongest factor in each model. Crosstabular examination reveals that females in the sample were more likely to disapprove of concealed weapons laws, more likely to believe that the laws increased violence, more likely to report that the laws made their duties more difficult, and were more likely to request to search a vehicle driven by a concealed weapon holder under the provided vignette.

PAGE 38

30 Table 3: Independent Effects in Reduced Stepwise Regression Models Effects -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Q15: Opinion of Concealed Weapons Laws Intercept 71.635 .000 0 Q2: Gender 77.951 6.317** 3 Q17: Carried Concealed Weapon? 84.129 12.495*** 3 DATE: Survey Date 78.002 6.368** 3 Q16: Concealed Weapons Laws Effect on Violent Crime Intercept 63.474 .000 0 Q2: Gender 74.238 10.764*** 2 Q4: Ethnicity 76.602 13.128*** 2 Q25: Concealed Weapons Laws Make Duties More Difficult? Intercept 46.492 .000 0 Q1: Age 57.772 11.279*** 2 Q2: Gender 58.703 12.211*** 2 Q3: Race 55.241 8.749** 2 Q11: Military Experience 53.563 7.071** 2 Q14: Family NRA Members 56.280 9.788** 2 Q17: Carried Concealed Weapon 52.204 5.712* 2 Q21: Licensed for Concealed Weapon 54.977 8.484** 2 Q27: Contacts with Legal CCW Holders 55.363 8.871** 2 Q26: Restrictions on Concealed Weapons Laws? Intercept 59.068 .000 0 Q3: Race 67.325 8.257** 2 Q14: Family NRA Members 70.831 11.763*** 2 Q27: Contacts with Legal CCW Holders 69.920 10.851*** 2 Q28: Contacts with Illegal CCW Holders 68.708 9.640*** 2 Q29: Concealed Weapons Holders Effect on Violent Crime Intercept 65.316 .000 0 Q2: Gender 70.370 5.053* 2 Q27: Contacts with Legal CCW Holders 72.254 6.937** 2 Q24: Hypothetical Vignette: Request Search of CCW Holders Vehicle? Intercept 67.196 .000 0 Q2: Gender 74.737 7.541** 2 Q3: Race 75.849 8.653** 2 DATE: Survey Date 77.404 10.208*** 2 = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01

PAGE 39

31 These findings are consistent with other studies examining attitudes of women toward gun issues (Branscombe et. al, 1991; Cooke & Puddifoot, 2000). A Gallup poll conducted in June 2005 indicated that a majority of women (53%) believed that only government officials should carry handguns in public places. More than three quarters of women (76%) reported that they felt less safe in a public place that permitted concealed firearms. Race and ethnicity were significant in several models. Non-whites who participated in the survey were more likely to be neutral on whether the law makes their duties more difficult and whether they would place additional restrictions on the licensing process. Non-whites were also less likely to request to search a concealed weapon holders vehicle under the hypothetical vignette. Hispanics in the sample were more likely to believe concealed weapons laws decreased violent crime. These findings diverge somewhat from prior literature on gun control attitudes. First, race is generally not found to be a statistically significant predictor. Caento (1979), for example, found significant effects of gender for both gun ownership and attitudes toward gun control, but found no significant effects for race (white vs. non-white). Second, there appear to be virtually no peer-reviewed studies that make the distinction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics in sampling gun control attitudes. In most cases where ethnicity is considered, the categories appear to be collapsed into whites vs. non-whites for the purpose of analysis. The effects of prior experience with guns and the prior exposure to pro-gun subcultures were significant in two models. Respondents who had previously carried a concealed weapon were, unsurprisingly, more likely to approve of concealed weapons

PAGE 40

32 laws. This group was also more likely to respond that concealed carry laws made their official duties no more difficult (neutral). Military experience was significant in only one model, with those having military backgrounds more likely to report neutrality on whether the law makes their duties more difficult. Those who reported known contacts with concealed weapon holders were more likely to report that the laws made their duties more difficult, but paradoxically were less likely to express a desire to make the licensing process more restrictive. Family members NRA membership was significant in two models, including the one predicting placing restrictions on the acquisition of civilian licenses to carry concealed weapons. The objective of the current study is to measure attitudes and their effects, however, it is also possible to consider attitudes as an independent variable predicting behavior. Although cadet behavior was not directly measured, it might be reasonably approximated by the hypothetical scenario asking whether the subject would request a search of a vehicle whose driver was in possession of a concealed weapon. A follow-up analysis was conducted, in which the subjects projected decision to request a vehicle search was the dependent variable and two measures of attitudes pertaining to concealed weapons laws and concealed weapons holders were introduced as independent variables. All previous independent and control variables were retained in the model. The results indicate that neither of the two independent variables concerning attitudes about concealed weapons laws or concealed weapons holders were significant predictors of decision to request a vehicle search; rather, the significant predictors are the same as in the previous model (see Table 3) Results are presented in Table 4, and parameter estimates are included in Appendix A.

PAGE 41

33 Table 4: Independent Effects of Cadet Attitudes on Decision to Search Effects -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Q24: Hypothetical Vignette: Request Search of CCW Holders Vehicle? Intercept 67.304 .000 0 Q2: Gender 75.590 8.286** 2 Q3: Race 76.476 9.172*** 2 DATE: Survey Date 76.637 9.333*** 2 = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01 In conclusion, the available evidence from this sample of police cadets suggests that individual characteristics such as gender, race, and ethnicity play a role in influencing attitudes toward concealed weapons policies. Experiential factors (past history of carrying concealed weapons, possessing a license to carry) and socialization or subcultural factors (family NRA membership and military experience) found limited but inconsistent support. Discussion The objective of this study was to describe and explore the attitudes of police cadets toward concealed weapon permitting laws by (1) directly surveying active police cadets, (2) utilizing multiple operationalizations of gun-related experience and subcultural socialization effects as independent variables, (3) controlling for an assortment of demographic variables, and (4) employing multiple potential measures of cadet attitudes as dependent variables. The results of the analyses indicated that several models held predictive validity for the outcome variables employed, and that different factors were significant in predicting the dependent variables. Police behavior was not directly measured, but the data suggest that opinions toward concealed weapons laws are

PAGE 42

34 not a significant predictor of the decision to request a vehicle search in the presence of a concealed weapon. Although preliminary, these findings are interesting in several ways. First, there appears to be diversity in attitudes and beliefs toward concealed weapon policies among members of the law enforcement community. This suggests that police cadets in this sample operate without a groupthink bias either toward or against gun control. It also hints at the possibility of individual officer discretion in gun enforcement situations. Second, the factors predicting the attitudes of interest demonstrate that different individual characteristics hold value depending on the attitude under examination. In some cases, the regression models held substantial predictive accuracy, but it seems unlikely that one construct (e.g., social learning) can account for the majority of variance in all of the models. If that were the case, the same independent variables would have been significant in a majority of models, when in fact only one factor (gender) appeared in all but one of the models. Third, because a single construct does not emerge to explain cadet attitudes, it seems plausible that other predictive factors may yet await detection. This indicates an opportunity for a more detailed investigation that accounts for new contextual variables not utilized here, such as measures of individual history, family structure, religiosity, political affiliation, education, income level, and so forth. If these measures can be successfully incorporated, it may be possible to draw a more complete picture of the personal or experiential attributes that matter most. Fourth, from a policy evaluation perspective, there may be inferences to be drawn from these data regarding the sustainability and enforceability of current shall-issue concealed weapon permit laws based on reactions from police on patrol. For example, escalating fear and strongly held

PAGE 43

35 anti-policy attitudes may suggest a questionable long-term outlook for the currently popular policies. On the other hand, the relatively ambivalent (and even supportive) attitude of police cadets toward concealed weapon legislation may indicate a tacit acceptance. Longitudinal analysis may help to address many of these future aims. Limitations This study was not without limitations. First, the research design employed is not conducive to inferring causation in any of the models. The target population was members of the law enforcement community. However, the lack of a discreet control group is defensible when only attitudes of police are of interest. Comparison to a control group may be beneficial in that they permit inferences about selection effects for police cadets, but a non-police control group does little to address the relationship between the surveyed attitudes and police behavior. Second, because the sample size was limited, and because the survey was administered at only one site, the generalizability of the findings is an issue. Until replication occurs, ideally across several different locations and with more participants, these conclusions should be regarded as preliminary findings for follow-up investigations. Third, the value of context must be recognized in interpreting the findings. The state of Florida was a pioneer in the implementation of a shall-issue permit law, and as such, Florida has one of the least restrictive policies on permits for concealed weapons anywhere in the United States. It is conceivable that surveyed attitudes pertaining to these laws may be influenced by either a more general knowledge of practical realities on the street, or by a resignation to the fact that public policy dealing with concealed weapons in Florida is unlikely to change in the near future. It is conceivable that a similar study, conducted outside the state of Florida, would generate remarkably different outcomes. Finally, the use of stepwise regression techniques may

PAGE 44

36 indicate a potential weakness in the analysis. Although stepwise procedures are not generally embraced for traditional theory testing purposes due to problems with artificially high pseudo-R2 values, difficulty with collinearity, and other mathematical concerns, in this case the stepwise approach offers a convenient tool for evaluating the statistically significant factors in a model that is not grounded in a formal theoretical framework. In the current study, multicollinearity was not problematic. The sample and data also presented some specific limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the survey was administered on two different dates as a matter of availability, and the effects of the split may be confounded by salient current events. The date of the second administration coincided with the introduction of a very public amendment to Floridas laws pertaining to the use of force by civilians. In the amendment, the so-called castle doctrine was extended into the public domain for those citizens who use lethal force in self-defense (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2005). In essence, legally armed citizens were no longer required to retreat from an attacker before using force under the proposal, whereas existing law required at least a reasonable effort to escape the threat before using force. The practical implications of this proposal made headlines worldwide (Elliott, 2005), and the accompanying debate undoubtedly permeated law enforcement communities as it did with the general public. A control variable was added to the models to account for any variation in attitude reporting due to these events, and the results indicated that the effect was significant in two of the six regressions. In a way, the status of gun legislation in Florida at the time of this survey could be viewed as an opportunity to draw comparisons

PAGE 45

37 in preand post-law enforcement opinions. Replication of this survey after the law takes effect in October 2005 may yield additional insights. The survey date is related to another limitation of this study. For confidentiality reasons, no personally identifying information was recorded from the participants in this sample. Although the date of the survey is known, not all cadets began their academy experience at the same time, so calculating the amount of time that a particular cadet had been enrolled in the police academy at the time of the survey is impossible. This presents a constraint when considering the potentially significant effects of police socialization and training, in that it is very difficult to quantify the effects of more experience on the respondents attitudes of interest with these data. A cadet who has been at the academy longer is presumed to have been more socialized than a brand new cadet, and it seems likely that socialization plays a major role in gun-related beliefs and behaviors based on past research (Cao, Link, & Cullen, 1997). Subsequent analysis using an independent samples t-test shows that the means of the dependent variables for the two groups (separated by survey date) differs on only one dimension, with the group surveyed in February more likely to approve or strongly approve of concealed weapons laws. The results suggest that any potential effects of experience and socialization are minimal for this sample, which is reasonable for a sample of police cadets. Results are presented in Table 5. Future Research One potentially important issue largely unaddressed by this investigation is the degree to which cadets or inexperienced rookie officers are socialized into a subculture or fraternity of policing. The presence of such a subculture may fundamentally alter belief systems instilled at the academy. It seems plausible that the formal or informal tutelage

PAGE 46

38 of more experienced mentor officers may outweigh a cadets training in some instances. A future project may involve a survey of relevant attitudes with a sample of veteran officers, in order to compare the two groups and derive the value of real world experience and/or acculturation for police. Furthermore, the extent to which these factors influence the implementation of new policing strategies, whether related to gun control or not, may be interesting from a policy evaluation perspective. Table 5: Independent Samples t-Test Grouped by Survey Date t df Mean Difference Std. Err. Diff. Q15: Opinion of concealed weapons laws 2.428** 27.654 .582 .240 Q16: CCW laws effect on violent crime -1.475 31.006 -.327 .222 Q24: Hypo: search vehicle? -1.296 34.063 -.245 .189 Q25: CCW laws make duties more difficult? 1.585 26.611 .251 .158 Q26: Restrictions on CCW laws? -.160 26.537 -.029 .180 Q29: Opinion of concealed weapons holders .269 24.262 .069 .257 = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01 Future investigations may find success in further exploring the nature of police cadet training with respect to concealed weapons. One possible implication for the safety first mentality taught in police academies is that any concealed weapon, whether legal or illegal, is a threat until neutralized. Therefore, the psychology of a routine traffic stop where concealed weapons may be present likely extends well beyond a favorable vs. unfavorable view on the presence of concealed weapons into a series of decisions and procedures, any or all of which may reflect an individual officers attitudes or beliefs. Qualitative interviews with cadets and instructors, critical assessment of academy

PAGE 47

39 curricula, and systematic observation of police-citizen encounters may yield additional avenues for exploration on this topic. Broader inquiry into the domain of gun policy and policing issues may address rationalization of violent gun crime and legal gun defense from a multidisciplinary approach (e.g., psychological, sociological, biological), and will very likely involve further replications and program initiatives with the cooperation of the law enforcement community. The effects of fear of crime, attitudes toward police, and the impact of self-control theories related to gun use all have promise as further avenues of investigation. Hopefully, policymakers will eventually come to recognize that the answers to questions of gun policy will never be as simplistic as more guns or fewer guns, but will require layered, integrated solutions to ensure that guns are regulated and managed in a responsible way. Clearly, the need for continued investigation and innovation on the gun problem is as pronounced now as it has ever been.

PAGE 48

APPENDIX A PARAMETER ESTIMATES FOR MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODELS

PAGE 49

Table A-1: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q15 Effects Strongly Disapprove vs. Neutral Approve vs. Neutral Strongly Approve vs. Neutral B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Q15: Opinion of Concealed Weapons Laws Intercept ------------------Q2: Gender (0=Male) ------1.502** .753 4.492 ------Q17: Carried Concealed Weapon? (0=No) -------------3.267** 1.298 .038 DATE: Survey Date (0=2/10/05) ------------------Reference category is Neutral. = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01 Table A-2: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q16 41 Effects Likely to Decrease Violence vs. Neutral Likely to Increase Violence vs. Neutral B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Q16: Concealed Weapons Laws Effect on Violent Crime Intercept ------------Q2: Gender (0=Male) ------------Q4: Ethnicity (0=Non-Hispanic) ------------Reference category is Not likely to influence violence (neutral). = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01

PAGE 50

Table A-3: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q25 Effects More Difficult vs. Neutral Less Difficult vs. Neutral 42 B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Q25: Concealed Weapons Laws Make Duties More Difficult? Intercept ------------Q1: Age (1=19-29 years) ------------Q2: Gender (0=Male) -1.704* .887 .182 ------Q3: Race (0=White) 2.024** .970 7.566 ------Q11: Military Experience (0=None) ------------Q14: Family NRA Members (1=No) ------------Q17: Carried Concealed Weapon (1=No) ------------Q21: Licensed for Concealed Weapon (1=No) ------------Q27: Contacts with Legal CCW Holders (0=None) ------------Reference category is No more difficult (neutral). = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01 Table A-4: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q26 Effects More Restrictive vs. Neutral Less Restrictive vs. Neutral B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Q26: Restrictions on Concealed Weapons Laws? Intercept ------------Q3: Race (0=White) 1.593** .720 4.920 ------Q14: Family NRA Members (1=No) ------------Q27: Contacts with Legal CCW Holders (0=None) ------------Q28: Contacts with Illegal CCW Holders (0=None) ------------Reference category is No more restrictive (neutral). = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01

PAGE 51

Table A-5: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q29 43 Effects More Likely to Decrease Violence vs. Neutral More Likely to Increase Violence vs. Neutral B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Q29: Concealed Weapons Holders Effect on Violent Crime Intercept ------------Q2: Gender (0=Male) ------------Q27: Contacts with Legal CCW Holders (0=None) -1.586* .868 .205 -1.991* 1.163 .136 Reference category is Not likely to influence violence (neutral). = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01 Table A-6: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q24 Effects More Likely to Search vs. Neutral Less Likely to Search vs. Neutral B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Q24: Hypothetical Vignette: Request Search of CCW Holders Vehicle? Intercept ------------Q2: Gender (0=Male) -1.904* .993 .149 ------Q3: Race (0=White) -------2.556*** .995 .077 DATE: Survey Date (0=2/10/05) ------------Reference category is No effect (neutral). = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01

PAGE 52

44 Table A-7: Significant Parameter Estimates in Reduced Stepwise Regression Model for Q24 with Additional IVs Effects More Likely to Search vs. Neutral Less Likely to Search vs. Neutral B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Q24: Hypothetical Vignette: Request Search of CCW Holders Vehicle? Intercept ------------Q2: Gender (0=Male) -1.858* .995 .156 ------Q3: Race (0=White) -------2.692*** .974 .068 DATE: Survey Date (0=2/10/05) ------------Reference category is No effect (neutral). = p .10, ** = p .05, *** = p .01

PAGE 53

APPENDIX B POLICE CADET SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Q1: Please indicate your age: Q2: Please indicate your gender: 1 Male 2 Female Q3: Please indicate your race: 1 White 2 Non-white Q4: Please indicate your ethnicity: 1 Hispanic 2 Non-Hispanic Q5: Please indicate your zip code of residence: Q6: Please indicate the total number of years you have been a police officer: Q7: Please indicate your marital status: 1 Single (never married) 2 Married 3 Divorced or separated Q8: Please indicate your political affiliation: 1 Republican 2 Democrat 3 Other/third party 4 No political affiliation Q9: Did you vote in the November 2004 Presidential election? 1 No 2 Yes Q10: Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed: 0 Lower than high school 1 High school or GED 2 Some college or AA/AS 3 Undergraduate or BA/BS 4 Graduate school or MA/MS/MBA/etc. 5 Postgraduate/professional school or PhD/MD/etc. 45

PAGE 54

46 Q11: Please indicate your military experience: 1 No military experience 2 Active duty 3 Reserves/National Guard 4 Other (please specify) Q12: If you have served in the military, please indicate which branch: Q13: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the National Rifle Association? 1 No 2 Yes Q14: Do any members of your immediate family (parents, siblings, spouse) belong to the National Rifle Association? 1 No 2 Yes Q15: Please indicate your opinion of concealed weapon laws generally: 1 Strongly disapprove 2 Disapprove 3 Neutral 4 Approve 5 Strongly approve Q16: In your opinion, are concealed weapon laws: 1 More likely to cause a decrease in violent crime 2 More likely to cause an increase in violent crime 3 Not likely to influence violent crime either way Q17: Before you became a police officer, did you ever carry a concealed weapon? 1 No, never carried a weapon 2 Yes, carried a weapon Q18: If YES to above question, please indicate the type of concealed weapon that you carried (mark all that apply): 1 Handgun 2 Fixed-blade knife (e.g., hunting knife or dagger) 3 Folding knife (e.g., pocket knife) 4 Stun gun 5 Billy club 6 Other (please specify) Q19: If YES to above question, please indicate the number of times per week that you typically carried your weapon(s):

PAGE 55

47 Q20: If you answered yes to previous, please indicate most likely reason for concealed carry (otherwise skip to next question): 1 Enjoy hunting, recreational shooting, or competitive shooting sports 2 Personal protection 3 Other (please specify) Q21: Before you became a police officer, did you possess a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon? 1 No, never had a license 2 Yes, had a license Q22: If YES to above question, please indicate the state(s) from which you acquired a concealed weapons license or permit: Consider this hypothetical scenario. While out on patrol, you pull over a car for a minor traffic violation, such as speeding. When you approach the driver, he states that he is in possession of a concealed weapon and that he is licensed to carry the weapon. Q23: Regarding the hypothetical scenario above, are you: 1 More likely to write him a traffic ticket 2 Less likely to write him a traffic ticket 3 Equally likely to write him a traffic ticket, regardless of this information Q24: Regarding the hypothetical scenario above, are you: 1 More likely to request to search his vehicle 2 Less likely to request to search his vehicle 3 Equally likely to request to search his vehicle, regardless of this information Q25: In your opinion, do concealed weapons laws make your duties as a police officer: 1 Much more difficult 2 Somewhat more difficult 3 No more difficult (same as before) 4 Somewhat less difficult 5 Much less difficult Q26: If you could personally control concealed weapons laws, would you make them: 1 Much more restrictive 2 Somewhat more restrictive 3 No more restrictive (same as current laws) 4 Somewhat less restrictive 5 Much less restrictive Q27: How many times have you personally had contact with an individual carrying a concealed weapon legally (e.g., possessing a valid permit)?

PAGE 56

48 Q28: How many times have you personally had contact with an individual carrying a concealed weapon illegally (e.g., not possessing a valid permit)? Q29: In your opinion, are legal concealed weapon permit holders: 1 More likely to cause a decrease in violent crime 2 More likely to cause an increase in violent crime 3 Not likely to influence violent crime either way

PAGE 57

LIST OF REFERENCES Akers, R. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bankston, W., Thompson, C., Jenkins, Q., & Forsyth, C. (1990). The influence of fear of crime, gender, and Southern culture on carrying firearms for protection. Sociological Quarterly, 31(2), 287-305. Branscombe, N., Weir, J., & Crosby, P. (1991). A three-factor scale of attitudes toward guns. Aggressive Behavior, 17, 261-273 Caento, D. (1979). The domestic arms race. Journal of Communication, 29(2), 39-46. Cao, L., Cullen, F., & Link, B. (1997). The social determinants of gun ownership: Self-protection in an urban environment. Criminology, 35(4), 629-650. Cohen, J. & Ludwig, J. (2003). Policing crime guns. In J. Ludwig & P. Cook (Eds.), Evaluating gun policy (pp. 217-250). Washington D.C.: Brookings. Cook, P. & Ludwig, J. (2000). Gun violence: The real costs. Oxford University Press. Cooke, C. & Puddifoot, J. (2000). Gun culture and symbolism among U.K. and U.S. women. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(4), 423-433. Cress, L. (1984). An armed community: The origins and meaning of the right to bear arms. The Journal of American History, 71(1), 22-42. Donohue, J. (2003). The final bullet in the body of the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 397-409. Dowler, K. (2002). Media influence on attitudes toward guns and gun control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26(2), 235-247. Eliason, S. (2003). Throwing the book versus cutting some slack: Factors influencing the use of discretion by game wardens in Kentucky. Deviant Behavior, 24, 129-152. Elliott, G. (2005, April 9). Fight or flight? Florida gun folk to be given option. The Weekend Australian, World section, p. 17. Fagan, J. (2003). Guns, science, and social policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 359-361. 49

PAGE 58

50 Fagan, J., Zimring, F., & Kim, J. (1998). Declining homicide in New York City: A tale of two trends. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88(4), 1277-1307. Fielding, N. & Fielding, J. (1991).. Police attitudes to crime and punishment. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 39-53. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2005, May 5). Link to new Use of deadly force law effective October 10, 2005. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/law_deadly_force.html Gallup Organization. (2005, June 14). Public wary about broad concealed firearms privileges. Retrieved June 24, 2005, from http://www.gallup.com/ Greene, J. (1999). Zero tolerance: A case study of police policies and practices in New York City. Crime & Delinquency, 45(2), 171-187. Kamin, S. (1999). Law and technology: The case for a smart gun detector. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 221-262. Kleck, G. (1996). Crime, culture conflict and the sources of support for gun control: A multilevel application of the general social surveys. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4), 387-405. Kleck, G. & Gertz, M. (1995). Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 150-187. Kleck, G. & Gertz, M. (1998). Carrying guns for protection: results from the National Self-Defense Survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(2), 193-225. Kovandzic, T. & Marvell, T. (2003). Right-to-carry concealed handguns and violent crime: Crime control through gun decontrol? Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 363-396. Lafree, G. (2000). Explaining the crime bust of the 1990s. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 91(1), 269-305. Lizotte, A., Boruda, D. (1980). Firearm ownership for sport and protection: two divergent models. American Sociological Review, 45(2), 229-244. Lizotte, A., Krohn, M., Howell, J., Tobin, K., & Howard, G. (2000). Factors influencing gun carrying among young urban males over the adolescent-young adult life-course. Criminology, 38(3), 811-834. Lott, J. & Mustard, D. (1997). Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1-68.

PAGE 59

51 Ludwig, J. (2003). Evaluating gun-policy evaluations. Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 411-418. Lundman, R. (1979). Organizational norms and police discretion. Criminology, 17(2), 159-171. MacDonald, J. (2002). The effectiveness of community policing in reducing urban violence. Crime & Delinquency, 48(4), 592-618. McGarrell, E., Chermak, S., Weiss, A., & Wilson, J. (2001). Reducing firearms violence through directed police patrol. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(1), 119-148. Moore, M. (1980). The police and weapons offenses. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 452(1), 22-32. Paoline, E., Myers, S., & Worden, R. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 575-606. Pierce, G. & Bowers, W. (1981). The Bartley-Fox gun laws short-term impact on crime in Boston. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 455, 120-137. Rosenfeld, R. & Decker, S. (1996). Consent to search and seizure: evaluating an innovative youth firearm suppression program. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 197-220. Schwaner, S., Furr, L., Negrey, C., & Seger, R. (1999). Who wants a gun license? Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(1), 1-10. Sherman, L. & Rogan, D. (1995). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: Hot spot patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 673-694. Stell, L. (2001). Gun control and the regulation of fundamental rights. Criminal Justice Ethics, 20(1), 28-33. Terrill, W. & Reisig, M. (2003). Neighborhood context and police use of force. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(3), 291-321. Wilcox, P. (2002). Self-help? Examining the anti-crime effectiveness of citizen weapon possession. Sociological Focus, 35(2), 145-167. Willis, C. & Wells, R. (1988). The police and child abuse: An analysis of police decisions to report illegal behavior. Criminology, 26(4), 695-716. Worden, A. (1993). The attitudes of women and men in policing: Testing conventional and contemporary wisdom. Criminology, 31(2), 203-241.

PAGE 60

52 Worden, R. (1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: A theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law & Society Review, 23(4), 667-711. Wright, J. (1986). The armed criminal in America. Research in Brief, National Institute of Justice, 1-5. Wright, J. & Marston, L. (1975). The ownership of the means of destruction: Weapons in the U.S. Social Problems, 23(1), 93-107. Zimring, F. (1995). Reflections on firearms and the criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 86(1), 1-9. Zimring, F. & Fagan, J. (2000). The search for causes in an era of crime declines: some lessons from the study of New York City homicide. Crime & Delinquency, 46(4), 446-456.

PAGE 61

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matt Nobles is a Gainesville native and life-long Gator fan, graduating from Gainesville High School in 1997. He received a B.S. in psychology with dual minors in business administration and criminology from the University of Florida in 2001, followed by a B.A. in criminology in 2003, and was elected to the honor society of Phi Kappa Phi. Matt anticipates pursuing a Ph.D. in criminology at the University of Florida, where he will continue to contribute leadership and service. 53