后弗吉尼亚理工大学时代的隐性校园经营:国家监管的维度及其影响语境的差异

Q1 Social Sciences Criminal Justice Policy Review Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1177/08874034211028276
J. Sloan, B. Fisher
{"title":"后弗吉尼亚理工大学时代的隐性校园经营:国家监管的维度及其影响语境的差异","authors":"J. Sloan, B. Fisher","doi":"10.1177/08874034211028276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Debates over concealed carrying of guns on campus (CCOC) usually classify states as either “allowing” or “prohibiting” CCOC, thus ignoring research revealing state firearm regulatory frameworks are more nuanced. This study examined whether such subtleties existed in state CCOC regulatory frameworks by analyzing states’ 2018 CCOC regulatory provisions. Results showed that states used a multi-categorical restrictiveness-by-institutional discretion framework to regulate CCOC. In addition, indicators of intrastate contexts of influence (firearms, political, and religious) on regulatory policy differed across categories of restrictiveness and institutional discretion. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed significant differences in indicators of states’ political contexts, and post hoc comparisons of paired marginal means revealed significant differences in political indicators between states prohibiting CCOC and those allowing or those with mixed restrictiveness, and between states according schools full discretion and those according schools no discretion. Implications of the results are discussed for state-level research on firearms regulation and the ongoing CCOC debate.","PeriodicalId":10757,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"45 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211028276","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concealed Carrying on Campus in the Post–Virginia Tech Era: Dimensions of State Regulation and Differences in Contexts of Influence Within Them\",\"authors\":\"J. Sloan, B. Fisher\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08874034211028276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Debates over concealed carrying of guns on campus (CCOC) usually classify states as either “allowing” or “prohibiting” CCOC, thus ignoring research revealing state firearm regulatory frameworks are more nuanced. This study examined whether such subtleties existed in state CCOC regulatory frameworks by analyzing states’ 2018 CCOC regulatory provisions. Results showed that states used a multi-categorical restrictiveness-by-institutional discretion framework to regulate CCOC. In addition, indicators of intrastate contexts of influence (firearms, political, and religious) on regulatory policy differed across categories of restrictiveness and institutional discretion. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed significant differences in indicators of states’ political contexts, and post hoc comparisons of paired marginal means revealed significant differences in political indicators between states prohibiting CCOC and those allowing or those with mixed restrictiveness, and between states according schools full discretion and those according schools no discretion. Implications of the results are discussed for state-level research on firearms regulation and the ongoing CCOC debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Justice Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"45 - 73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/08874034211028276\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Justice Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211028276\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211028276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于校园内隐蔽携带枪支(CCOC)的争论通常将各州归类为“允许”或“禁止”CCOC,从而忽视了表明各州枪支监管框架更为微妙的研究。本研究通过分析各州2018年CCOC监管规定,检验了各州CCOC监管框架中是否存在此类微妙之处。结果表明,各州采用了制度自由裁量权的多类别限制框架来监管CCOC。此外,州内对监管政策的影响(枪支、政治和宗教)指标在限制性和机构自由裁量权类别之间存在差异。协方差分析(ANCOVA)揭示了各州政治背景指标的显著差异,配对边际均值的事后比较揭示了禁止CCOC的州与允许或混合限制的州在政治指标上的显著差异,在各州之间,根据学校的完全自由裁量权和根据学校的没有自由裁量量权。讨论了这些结果对州级枪支监管研究和正在进行的CCOC辩论的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Concealed Carrying on Campus in the Post–Virginia Tech Era: Dimensions of State Regulation and Differences in Contexts of Influence Within Them
Debates over concealed carrying of guns on campus (CCOC) usually classify states as either “allowing” or “prohibiting” CCOC, thus ignoring research revealing state firearm regulatory frameworks are more nuanced. This study examined whether such subtleties existed in state CCOC regulatory frameworks by analyzing states’ 2018 CCOC regulatory provisions. Results showed that states used a multi-categorical restrictiveness-by-institutional discretion framework to regulate CCOC. In addition, indicators of intrastate contexts of influence (firearms, political, and religious) on regulatory policy differed across categories of restrictiveness and institutional discretion. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed significant differences in indicators of states’ political contexts, and post hoc comparisons of paired marginal means revealed significant differences in political indicators between states prohibiting CCOC and those allowing or those with mixed restrictiveness, and between states according schools full discretion and those according schools no discretion. Implications of the results are discussed for state-level research on firearms regulation and the ongoing CCOC debate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Criminal Justice Policy Review
Criminal Justice Policy Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Criminal Justice Policy Review (CJPR) is a multidisciplinary journal publishing articles written by scholars and professionals committed to the study of criminal justice policy through experimental and nonexperimental approaches. CJPR is published quarterly and accepts appropriate articles, essays, research notes, interviews, and book reviews. It also provides a forum for special features, which may include invited commentaries, transcripts of significant panels or meetings, position papers, and legislation. To maintain a leadership role in criminal justice policy literature, CJPR will publish articles employing diverse methodologies.
期刊最新文献
Correctional Transgender Policy in Canada's Federal Prison System. The Impact of Department of Justice Reform Agreements on Arrest Rates and Racial Disparity Within Arrests Exploring Cybercrime Capabilities: Variations Among Cybercrime Investigative Units Exploring the Impact of Rehabilitation and Custody Orientations on Workplace Experiences of Juvenile Probation and Detention Officers Validating Responsivity Assessments for Correctional Populations: Evaluating the Association With Program Participation, Dosage, and Completion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1