Open-Carry in Texas: Good or Bad?

Open-carry laws are attracting a lot of attention in Texas. In a speech earlier this month, Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott proposed allowing concealed handgun license holders to carry their firearms openly. If you have read my previous blogs over guns, you may have noticed a lean towards a “pro second amendment” ideology; however, I am against Abbott's proposal allowing Texans to bear their arms openly in public. My current standpoint over open-carry laws may seem contradictory but I have good reasons. 

Prior to my research for creating this blog post, I was in favor of open carry. In my blog post over campus carry, I used common sense to support my argument; however, I discovered the open-carry controversy is not as simple. In order to achieve a more precise analysis, I had to consider many factors beyond common sense. 

Charles Cotton, president of the Texas Firearms Coalition and board member of the National Rifle Association, said that support for open carry has become more mainstream, and that legislation allowing it has a chance to pass. The increase in open-carry advocates is no mystery. Open-carry advocates (as I once was) use supporting ideas which appeal to our common sense. 

Two of the major supporting ideas for open carry are enhanced safety by further deterring criminals and essentially, “There’s nothing to fear from honest people carrying their legal weapons openly and peacefully.” (Kathie Glass) Furthermore, the majority of states permit the open carry of handguns, with many requiring a license to do so. Texas is one of six states, along with the District of Columbia, that expressly prohibit the open carry of handguns. 

In theory, deterrence is a rational argument. Unfortunately, the inability to quantify makes it undependable. As for carrying handguns openly not posing a threat to the public because these people have proven themselves phenomenally responsible, one can’t help but ask. Other than deterrence, what other benefits are there for carrying in plain view? What motivates an individual to display their firearm in the first place?

The point of carrying a firearm is for the ability, within the law, to protect oneself or one’s family. Lets be realistic, not all gun owners are rational and mature. When the limits of civilized behavior are pushed against immaturity, irrational intimidation is inevitable. The purpose of carrying a firearm is not to convince someone else how tough or dangerous one might be. These actions can increase the odd of escalating negative encounters. It is taught in the CHL courses, do not assume everyone will react the same (with fear) when threatened with a gun. 

Another disadvantage of open carry is provocation. Open carry creates a tempting target for someone of criminal intent or unstable mind. The pistol’s prime advantage is its small, concealable size. Open carry gives up the pistol’s single greatest advantage: stealth. It alerts every criminal that you are armed, so he can take you out first. He can then relieve you of that pistol which is threat to him. Tactically, concealed carry beats open carry every time.

I have determined that the cons of open carry outweighs the pros significantly. A genuinely responsible law-abiding citizen will avoid hostile conflicts at all costs and are able to clearly identify circumstances when the use of a firearm is completely necessary; therefore, the responsible citizen should understand the disadvantages of open carry and would prefer to conceal carry. Without strong supporting arguments for open carry, one can speculate open-carry advocates (not all) to be overbearing and boastful individuals with intentions to carry other than protection. 

References 

Open-Carry Advocates See Hope in Abbott Proposal

Open Carry Texas

Texas’ gun laws work; open carry wouldn’t

The Truth About Guns

Where is my plastic bag? Probably in landfills or oceans

The Texas Government blog Texas The Lone Star State has an entry titled “Where is my plastic bag?” in which the author, Mildred, opposed the Austin plastic bag ban. Mildred supports her claim with these points, people not from Austin are not used to paying for bags, plastic bags are not a major problem for the environment, the increase of shoplifting, and the use of plastic bags other than for shopping. I disagree with Mildred and here is my counter argument. 

As an individual who has experienced pre and post plastic bag ban, I can relate to those who are experiencing it for the first time. Paying for reusable bags and having to bring them every time I go grocery shopping is troublesome and inconvenient. However, if major environmental benefits is a result, I am willing to endure a minor inconvenience. This issue is completely subjective due to personal environmental standpoints. 

Mildred’s argument, “the bag is not the major big problem for the environment” has no supporting evidence. Plastic bags take hundreds of years to degrade and fill up landfill sites and oceans. Plastic litter can also lead to clogged drains, which result in sanitation, flooding and sewage problems. Plastic bags cause the death of many marine animals every year through ingestion. The incineration of plastic bags pollutes the air and releases toxic substances which contaminate soil and waterways. Plastic bags are also responsible for using up oil, a scarce natural resource.

There is no doubt that plastic bag usage can be environmentally very damaging. These concerns have caused governments around the world to introduce legislation to limit the use of plastic bags. They have used a variety of regulatory instruments for this purpose. However, complete bans have yielded mixed results creating a controversy. Some argue the ineffectiveness due to consumers continuing to use plastic bags in blatant violation of existing rules. Another major argument against plastic bag bans is that a ban shifts production to paper bags and compostable bags, both of which have heavy environmental consequences.

Mildred uses her experiences working in retail to support her claim on an increase in shoplifting due to the plastic bag ban. However, shoplifting is an age-old issue and no evidence of an increase since the plastic bag ban have been discovered. 

As for plastic bags used for situations other than shopping, I believe it is indirectly related to the ban. You can still purchase plastic bags for other usages such as trash bags. The purpose of the plastic bag ban is to reduce plastic bags by eliminating free distribution of them in stores, not to eliminate them all together. In my personal experience, I still use plastic bags which I must now purchase but because I no longer get a near infinite amount every time I go to the grocery store, I have notice a reduction in plastic bag consumption in my house. 

We have grown so accustomed to the convenience of plastic bags, it was difficult to see impact they have to our environment. I support the plastic bag ban because although it is not perfect, I believe it is a major step in solving the problem. Many alternative solutions have been proposed which I believe would be more effective but the plastic bag ban shows that we realize there is problem and are we willing to make an effort in solving it. 

References

How Many Cities Have a Ban on Plastic Bags?

Facts About the Plastic Bag Pandemic

Is a Ban the Best Way to Reduce Plastic Bag Use? A Case Study from Delhi

Do Bag Bans Work?

Should Plastic Bags Be Banned?

Campus Carry Legislation: How to Help Criminals

On April 7, 2012, A gunman at Oikos University told the students to line up against the wall and exclaimed, "I'm going to kill you all!" before shooting 7 students to death and wounded 3 others. Oikos University shooting is one of many shootings which occurred at an university. Northern Illinois University shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, the list goes on. Solutions to preventing future reoccurrences are constantly being debated. I believe most of these debates lack rationality. 

I find it important is completely break down the situations to the core elements. What are the fundamental conditions which must exist for these undesired outcome to proceed. Here is what I’ve come up with. 

1. A person who wishes to cause harm to another person(s) 

2. The use of a weapon/tool, i.e. firearms, for the individual to carry out these wishes most effectively

3. Victims unable to defend themselves from the individual who wishes to cause them harm

All three of these factors must be present in order for the events to occur. By removing one, we can prevent the event altogether. 

Number one is unpreventable. Number two and three is where it gets interesting. Number three is directly correlated to number two, as in number three can only exist when number two is true. In America, and in Texas, guns are present and available. Guns are widely produced and distributed. As much as we try to regulate them, there are still countless possibilities for anyone to obtain one whether it’s purchased legally or stolen. Because of this, the only way to prevent number two is to remove all guns everywhere. Not only stop all future productions but also confiscate and destroy all current firearms. If you have any knowledge of history and don’t live in an utopian fantasy, you would know how unrealistic this hypothetical proposition is. This makes number two unpreventable as well. So our last hope lies within number three. If there is always a possibility of someone threatening my life with a firearm, I must always be able to defend myself with a firearm. In theory, if everyone has a firearm, it removes the threat by spreading out  the power. 

Laws are a system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. Laws are meant to protect our general safety. Punishments are in place for those who break the law. But what happens when the laws become counter productive? What if the law is helping the criminal and harming the law-abiding citizen? It must be recognized and changed. 

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is irrational and has taken way to long to be realized. The current Texas legislation has passed a new bill which allows students with concealed weapons permits to bring their guns on campus as long as the guns remain in cars at all times. It’s good to know that if there is a gunman in my classroom shooting students, I can run to my car (hopefully unnoticed by the gunman), grab my firearm from the trunk while the gunman continues to do as he pleases, run back with my firearm, and hopefully stop him before anyone else gets hurt. Obviously there is a lot of room for improvement but at least some people are beginning to realize how to think logically. 

“We’re not talking about classrooms full of angry gun-toting kids upset about their grades. We are talking about a fundamental, God-given natural right, that should not be abridged based upon some silly belief that rights are somehow contingent upon the location where you choose to exercise them. Signs and policies that mandate so called gun free zones ostensibly for the sake of safety instead create target-rich environments for the twisted criminal mind.  The time to pass Campus Carry is now.  I respectfully request you place it on the call.” (Jerry Patterson)

Additional Readings
TXEXplainer: Campus-Carry Legislation
Guns on Campus: Overview 
Students for Concealed Carry 
The Shootist

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty: Guns, Guns, Guns!

We all want to feel safe but what does it means to be safe and how would you obtain this safety? Guns have been known to be lifesaving and induce a feeling of security. However, they can also be dangerous and evoke immense fear. Because of this, guns are a highly controversial issue. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms from infringement. As an individual who supports the Second Amendment, I figured the blog Senate Wins Big Victory for 2nd Amendment would be an interesting read. 

Recently, the tragic events caused by unstable individuals who used guns to take innocent lives has brought the issue of gun control to the publics attention once again. In this particular blog, Katie Kieffer writes about a multilateral treaty that regulates the international trade in conventional weapons called United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Her blog opens with, “U.S. Senators—both Democrats and Republicans—have pledged to stop Obama’s latest attack on the Second Amendment,” which also happens to sum up the blog nicely. It sounds like a victory for the Second Amendment but what exactly did the U.S Senators save it from? How was the ATT threatening the Second Amendment? 

In Katie Kieffer’s blog, she provides a link to an article called GUN OWNERS: Don’t Let Obama Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty, written by Katie Kieffer herself. This article describes how the Arms Trade Treaty threatens gun owners. Katie claims that a “National Control List” would be established which would enable all governments the ability to know anyone and everyone who owns a gun. Joe Wolverton of The New American shines more light on the ATT reporting, “Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Arms Trade Treaty give the UN the authority to apprehend the right of private citizens to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns. Ammunition, parts and components also fall under UN purview.” 

I was convinced by Kieffer and Wolverton, however, because of the bias tones, I was obligated to continue my research for a neutral source which was purely information based. The article Explainer: What Is The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty? could not have a more unbiased title. To my surprise, this article seems to promote the ATT. According to Richard Solash, the ATT seeks to, “Call for potential arms deals to be evaluated in order to determine whether they might enable buyers to carry out genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.” And, “To prevent conventional military weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists or organized criminal groups, and to stop deals that would violate UN arms embargos.” Solash uses “human rights records” to describe what Kieffer describes as the “Control List.” 

I found Kieffer’s blog to be very concise and convincing. Additional questions were quickly answered through her effective use of embedded links. Kieffer’s writing was very coherent and informative. I found the official United Nations website requires much improvement. It was difficult to navigate through and I would describe the site as vague and misleading. 

Government Shutdown: If You Haven't Heard Enough About it Already...

The United States federal government shutdown of 2013 has become the unavoidable topic of discussion everywhere. With all the commotion, most of my peers either try to avoid all the mainstream media or joke about it without any actual knowledge on the matter. However, with all the misunderstandings and misinterpretations, I took it upon myself to learn more about the shutdown.

A government shutdown is not the end of government as the name might suggest. The shutdown is simply the temporary suspension of non-emergency services. This process has occurred several times in the past, so it is nothing new. The current shutdown was caused by issues on the Affordable Care Act. 

After having a better idea of what was going on, I wanted to know more about Texas's involvement. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has an interesting part in the issue. Ted Cruz’s efforts to filibuster the healthcare law is controversial. This editorial believes Ted Cruz’s filibuster attempt was a tremendous waste of time and the time should have been used being more productive. This editorial believes Ted Cruz is driven by self-interest and is detrimental to Texas. Jeff Judson disagrees. Although he never says in his commentary that he supports Ted Cruz, he is opposed to the ACA policy and believes in “Someone in Congress standing up and speaking, reflecting the mood of real people back home.” Whether you are for or against Obamacare, it is moving forward. 

A controversy of this magnitude, pointing fingers is inevitable, from blaming congress to blaming Obama, Democrats, and the tea party. Rick Casey even wrote his commentary on how the Texas Legislature is better than Congress. I can feel the Texas pride emanating from his commentary. 

I do not have a deep enough understanding of government to have a clear and definite opinion on the issue of the current government shutdown. However, I discovered that how the commentary or editorial was written is more important than the actual information provided. For example, the commentary by Froma Harrop blames the republicans. Harrop’s commentary was written very informally, with phrases such as “Is cool with” and “Here’s a happy ending.” She also made a remark, if I’m not mistaking, joking about how the significance of the government shutdown is to keep the “panda cam” open. The sarcastic and slightly hostile tone was not appealing to me. I found Stephen Amberg’s commentary much more compelling. His writing is very professional. He provided relevant information, expressed genuineness, and a seemingly unbiased opinion.

Additional References 
Government shutdown in the United States." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.
United States federal government shutdown of 2013." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

Recession: Are We Close to Recovery?

If you have lived in America for some time, you have most likely been affected by the recession in some way. The recession has affected my family and I greatly. We have been waiting for improvement since it began and I assume the majority would agree. That is why Poverty Rate Declines for First Time Since Recession really caught my eye. Is this the first step towards recovery?

According to data released late Wednesday from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the National poverty rate did not change between 2011 and 2012, staying at 15.9 percent after having increased for four years in a row. Not quite the improvement everyone was hoping for, but what about a little closer to home? The percentage of Texans living in poverty dropped from 18.5 percent to 17.9 percent, marking the first decline in the state since the recession began, in 2008. Although Texas’ poverty rate remained above the national rate, and above the state's pre-recession rate, is this small improvement a sign of a brighter future? 

Texas’ declining poverty rate is related to the state’s low regulatory burden for businesses and the lack of a state income tax. Because of this, Texas has been a national leader in adding jobs, not to mention a thriving oil and gas industry that has kept unemployment below the national average. Lloyd Potter, Texas State Demographer, said growth in the oil industry is a big factor in decreasing poverty in Texas. Chuck DeVore, vice president of policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said, “We believe [the declining poverty rate] is directly connected to the fact that in Texas, people have the opportunity to work and to create businesses and to participate in the American Dream.” Unfortunately, many people disagree. 

Fatima Goss Graves, who tracks poverty and employment stats at the National Women's Law Center, says in today's economy, having a job doesn't necessarily mean you're not scraping by. Francis Deviney, senior research associate at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, agrees with Graves. Deviney said, “Even though Texas has relatively low unemployment, our workers are much more likely to be working in a job paying minimum wage or less compared to most other states.”

The low taxes in Texas is also a controversy. Rick Perry believes so strongly in low taxes that he goes job-poaching in Maryland believing that low taxes was his trump card. Maryland is not convinced. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley argued that by holding down both taxes and spending, Perry has left Texas with low graduation rates and high rates of poverty and people without health insurance.

I may have been overly optimistic over a misleading article title. The hard times of recession are tenacious with an arduous process of repair. Although this slight poverty rate decline in Texas might be insignificant, it should not be overlooked. Simply being aware that there is a problem and pointing fingers will never lead to a resolution. By being well informed as well as educating others, we can get involved with getting out of the recession as a community. 

References

Associated Press. "Incomes and Poverty in Texas Still Not Recovered." Kdhnews.com. The Killeen Daily Herald, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.

Gillman, Todd J. "Job-poaching in Maryland after Navy Yard Rampage, Rick Perry Takes Flak for Touring Gun Factory." Dallasnews.com. Washington Bureau, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.

"Hey Rick Perry: Don't Mess with Maryland." Baltimoresun.com. The Baltimore Sun, 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.

Lindtner, Nora. "New Census Data: Texas Poverty Dips, but Rate of Health Insurance Is Worst in Nation."

Blog.chron.com. Houston Chronicle, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.

MacLaggan, Corrie. "Poverty Rate Declines for First Time Since Recession." Texastribune.org. The Texas Tribune, 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.

Wang, Hansi Lo. "Stuck In Poverty Amid Signs Of Recovery." Tpr.org. Texas Public Radio, 21 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.