by Lucy Kuchma ‘18

The national conversation about gun control intensified after the November 5th shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

After gunman Devin Kelley opened fire on nearly 50 congregants of First Baptist Church, a local resident, Stephen Willeford, ran barefoot from his home holding only his semi-automatic rifle. Willeford shot Kelley and hit Kelley twice, prompting the perpetrator to ceasefire and flee the premises. Kelley later died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a police pursuit of his vehicle.

On one hand, the result of Willeford’s interference in Sutherland Springs represents the argument that arming and training the citizens is the best defensive against mass shootings; at any given time, there is someone who is prepared to respond immediately.

Since the mid-1990s, the debate over whether citizens possessing weapons would inhibit or amplify violent crime has raged among politicians and laymen alike.

Between 1981 and 2014, 33 states have established open-carry gun policies which allow individuals to maintain a non-concealed weapon on the body at all times. Forty-five states allow for residents to carry visible firearms, with varying degrees of necessary permits. All fifty states, however, theoretically allow for concealed carry, although these policies also differ by state in terms of the strictness of licensing requirements.

These laws were set in place largely because many Americans wish to be able to protect themselves against a perpetrator outside of their homes (where all 50 states allow guns to be kept).

Proponents of less restrictive gun laws often refer to a 1997 study by two University of Chicago economists. The researchers concluded that “right to carry” laws are the most “cost-effective method of reducing violent crime.” However, 20 years later, a group of researchers concluded that the contrary is true.

A study performed by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) from early 2017 estimated that, after ten years of open-carry legality in any given state, violent crime is between 13- and 15-percent higher than it would have been without the law. The study discusses both sides of the argument, with researchers claiming, “because guns are used frequently in self-defense they act as an effective deterrent to criminal activity.”

The study also featured the counterargument that, “gun ownership serves to increase crime, either by increasing the likelihood that any crime will result in a victim’s death or by increasing the chance that a domestic dispute will result in the death of one or more individuals.” The study further revealed that self-defense only accounts for roughly two-percent of all violent crimes, and of that, only three-percent of victims successfully used a gun against their attacker.

Stephen Willeford’s case is an anomaly, seeing as the vast majority of individuals are never faced with a situation in which they might have to protect nearly a hundred people from a violent perpetrator, with only a split second to act. That being said, the controversy remains over whether making guns easier to attain and carry is necessary and safe.