In response to Plastic Bag Ban Bad...

There are some very valid points when discussing the issues behind plastic bag ordinance in Austin in this commentary but here is where I disagree. 

I do not think the cost of plastic bags vs. the cost of paper bags is the issue in which the ordinance is combating.  The main issue is plastics come from oil.  This ordinance is one of the first steps of many in conserving oil until a new resource, which has as versatile an impact as oil, is discovered or manufactured.  It is used in plastics, in cars and bags, to pesticides, and fuel in vehicles from tractors, boats airplanes and automobiles.  Fossil fuels take eons to create, and the best way to recreate this “gold” still takes too long and cannot meet the consumer demand of the global population.

Another point in argument is that the lack in plastic bag production has cost the 4500 jobs, might very well be true.  On the other hand, I think these jobs were already at risk, not due to any other product but due to health concerns.  Some information available to the public notes health concerns which stem from even handling plastics much less being in the lab which makes these products! 

If everyone recycles then we would not have an issue with plastic bags destroying the environment, but to say everyone remembers to recycle, and then goes out of their way to do so is a tall tale. 

I despise the ordinance as well. Paying for bags because I forgot mine at home again! But then I put it into perspective and then appreciate what is trying to be accomplished.

Open Carry

A stigma may be brought to mind when we hear, “Open Carry.” Lone Ranger or other hero complexes perhaps? Opposition to open-carry suggests more gun related-incidents will occur, but is this premise based upon speculation or raw data?  

As much history has happened around the world, we now have vast amounts of data to give Open-Carry a truly academic and intelligent analysis, instead of, “Okay well if this happens, then this could happen...”  This raw data is important because it gives light to mitigating factors of the use of firearms.  For example one might speculate that if they witnessed a crime they would go stop it or intervene in some way, but when the moment arrives with the mixture of fear and adrenaline, what would truly happen and would this go to plan? This data gathered with interviews and other data, assembled over the years is much more enlightening than speculation.

Scandinavian countries have some of the highest populations of gun ownership per capita yet still have a low crime rate involving firearms.  This angle paints a different view than what some opposition would tell us when they mention negligent use of firearms.

I feel open-carry is a good deterrent for crime.  It shows passive force in which crime can be deterred as shown in Arizona.  Open-carry has been allowed in Arizona since 1994, which has a correlation with the drop in crime rate. 

However, there are more variables that affect our society when it comes to guns than just having them.  As I have always said, education is everything; it is the most valuable asset we can have.  Firearm discipline and education should be understood as the common attribute by all gun and non-gun owners, just as an automobile education, a 4,000 pound bullet which has the potential to cause devastation, is understood.