Stricter Gun Laws will not stop violence

Many liberal individuals have a mindset that more guns equal more gun violence, but this is not the case. Gun abusers are not specific to gun buyers or recreational users and hunters. Even with stricter gun laws in place, a criminal set on using and abusing a gun will not abide by the laws in place and disregard any regulation in his way.

The notion that stricter gun laws will prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands is absurd and it is unreal to ever think it will work. With the presence of the black market, any individual can buy any gun just by asking around in the right places. So what’s to say taking away the gun will stop an individual from committing the crime? Guns can easily be substituted for a wide range of weapons like knives, clubs/bats, and other random objects to produce similar, if not equal, bodily harm and/or intimidation.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem, and no amount of gun control laws will change how people think and make decisions. Looking at facts alone is evidence enough to see liberals’ obscure view on gun control and preventing gun violence.

The majority of gun related crimes are not at the hands of concealed handgun license holders as reported by the Texas Department of Public Safety in 2011. For aggravated robbery, 2,210 total convictions were reported statewide. Of those convictions, CHL holders perpetrated two.

Similarly, assault causing bodily injury had 8,304 total convictions where only 13 came by CHL holders. Robbery was 1,779 total with zero by CHL holders, manslaughter at 112 total and only three by CHL holders, and murder was 461 total with three by CHL holders. Just to sum it up, 63,679 total offensives were reported in Texas in 2011. Only 120 of those came by CHL holders — that’s only 0.1884 percent of all convictions. It’s easy to see that properly licensed gun owners are not the problem here.

The left-winged fear of the unknown is the culprit behind these attacks on gun laws and gun owners, ignoring the source of the problem that is the possessor of the gun/weapon. In the proper hands, a gun can be a lifesaving tool e.g., armed police. But, it becomes a deadly weapon to be feared when in the hands of criminals and individuals bent on harming others. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” pop icon Madonna said in an interview with the Washington Times June 24. This is a popular phrase commonly used that holds deep meaning, nonetheless.

In the right hands, or wrong for that matter, any object can be used as a weapon to cause death or bodily harm. So what makes guns specific for violence? Sure guns have been used throughout history in wars and other conflicts, but the purpose of a gun is not to kill; at least its intended purpose is not to kill. What many people may not see is that a gun is a tool designed to accelerate a projectile, from zero velocity to an arbitrarily higher velocity depending on distance to be covered, in a set direction. Guns are used for a variety of reasons from recreational use in shooting contests to survival usage in hunting.

Even when it comes to self-defense, guns are not always intended to kill. When used in self-defense, a gun’s purpose is to stop the bad guy. Only when the bad guy is set on harming a person, or even killing that person, is it understandable that killing him is the only way to guarantee the victim will survive. But, moreover, sheer intimidation is usually the case when used in self-defense.

Those who are not familiar with guns or have basic knowledge of current gun laws will often have a fear of guns because of the propaganda made by anti-gun activists or even by violence seen on media. But gun ownership is an essential part of self-defense and is a right guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Owning a gun, or even having a CHL, can be compared to owning a car and having a license to drive it. When used properly and safely, cars can be a safe and effective means of transportation. But when used incorrectly or carelessly, cars are a dangerous threat to everyone else on the road and to the person driving. The state trusts that each person driving a car has been properly licensed to safely operate a one-ton mass of steel on wheels with respect to the traffic laws in place, but this isn’t always the case.

According to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles in 2010, 3,023 deaths were reported as a result of car accidents. However, as released in the Crime Statistics for 2010 on the FBI website, only 805 deaths were reported in Texas for that year. That’s almost four times as many deaths due to car accidents than compared to gun violence. So why do liberals fight for stricter gun laws so much when fatal car accidents are more of a problem?


Similarly to substituting pepper-spray or tasers for guns, why not switch out all cars for bikes or scooters? If the former two are efficient means of self-defense, then the latter two must also be an efficient means of transportation. It seems that more people are willing to take on the responsibility of driving a car and risk a fatal accident so they can get from point-A to point-B faster. Likewise, gun owners also take on the risks and accept responsibility when purchasing a gun and/or obtaining their CHL.

Making guns harder to obtain will only leave the good guys unarmed and vulnerable. Mahatma Gandhi once said “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Although these words are almost a century old, they can still be applied to the problem facing the U.S. today. Leaving the people defenseless is not the solution for gun violence in America. Even if the intent is to lower gun violence and make places safer, I feel that this act will do more harm than good.


Looking at U.S. policy for drugs can give some insight to the future of guns in an anti-gun society. Making something illegal automatically creates a black market for that object. Although marijuana and other drugs are illegal in the U.S., they are still found everywhere imaginable. Like drugs, guns are found and will become more controlled by the black-market. Basic economics of supply and demand do not comply with the laws of the land or have any respect for the justice system.


Making guns harder to get or even illegal will put them into the hands of criminals and organized crime organizations that can, and will, supply them for the demanding public. Much like the dilemma of drugs in America, I hope liberals can see the full extent of where they are going and what to expect if they get what they want.

Lubbock Panel weighs in on Obamacare

Thursday night the Covenant School of Nursing hosted an Obamacare panel to answer many questions that many still have about this controversial law.  The sole purpose of this event was to give the general public in depth information about the effects, give medical and governmental views of the program, and local predictions on what to expect when this law is fully implemented.

The panel consisted of four members who included: State Representative Charles Perry; Democratic Party Chairman Kenny Ketner; Clarke E. Cochran, Ph.D; and Patricia Freier MSN, RN-BC, RCIS.  Each of the members was intended to bring a wide range of perspectives on the law while offering their expertise to dissect the different components of the law.  

During the debate, the panel was focused to address 4 main questions concerning the law.

1.      How will the public be affected by the new legislation in both personal and financial aspects? Will prices of healthcare actually increase or decrease overall for the average Joe?

2.      What new regulations and protocol will the hospital (Covenant) have to implement to be in compliance with the new legislation, how will this affect the public, and when will they begin to see the changes?

3.      In your own words, how will this legislation affect the work of Doctors/PA/NP/Nurses who serve the public?

4.      What is one part of the new legislation that you believe that everybody needs to know?

Because the Covenant School of Nursing was hosting the panel, a majority of the issues covered were the behind the scenes effects of the new law and how it would change the functions of healthcare providers. Medical jargon aside, many of the changes were said to be more noticeable on the care-giver side rather than the patient side.

Among other things brought up during the Q&A that followed the debate, the cost of Obamacare was the most concerning issue the audience asked about. Coincidently, this was the one thing the panel could agree on; Obamacare does not do enough to control costs. This is a question I personally brought to the panel because it is obvious that, aside from the individual mandate, costs were the biggest concern among the audience.

"We have the best healthcare in the world...if you can afford it" were the words from Democratic Party Chairman Kenny Ketner.

These words, surprisingly enough, are very true. And coming from the Democratic Party Chairman is a bit of a shock to me. It’s almost unheard of to hear anybody from the Democratic Party say anything less than praise about the new law. It’s generally known that supporters of Obama and the Democratic Party are also die-hard supporters of Obamacare. While shocking to hear, it is comforting to know that even the supporters of the law do see the problems it poses and address its shortcomings.

Dr. Cochran gave a noticeable opinion on the law saying he gave Obamacare 2 cheers rather than 3 because of this failure to control the costs of healthcare. He also said that neither the proposals by the Republicans or Democrats would control costs.

“Is the American Healthcare system affordable? No.” Cochran said in response to my question.

Dr. Cochran gave these reasons as to why the cost of healthcare was so high:

·         Prices, such as salaries to doctors, nurses, etc., being much higher than the rest of the world.

·         Administrative costs of running hospitals and healthcare programs.

·         Technological Innovation driving up healthcare costs, getting us less and less health for the dollars we spend in research and development. But nobody wants to reduce R&D or be slow to adopt the newest drug and/or procedure.

One interesting point brought up that the rest of the panel seemed to leave out of the discussion was made by Patricia Freier as she made her response to my question. While the other panelists focused on the failure of Obamacare to control the rising costs of healthcare, Freier looked at the source of the rising costs and a solution to it.

“We really have not talked about personal responsibility” Freier said in her response. “It’s all about costs we’ve been talking about here tonight.”

She used heart-attacks as an example to explain the rising costs of healthcare, a subject she specializes in.

“We know what causes a heart-attack; we know how to prevent it. All heart-attacks are preventable. But, you have to do your part and participate in that regiment. We have to have those people who can do those expensive procedures…and that’s driving up the costs of healthcare. It is actually not that expensive to go do this method, find out what your root causes are and treat them, and never have a heart-attack. But we don’t really talk about that, we don’t take that personal responsibility and that point needs to be made.”

A very interesting point brought up by someone who seemed to be a supporter of the new law.

Obamacare was designed with the best intentions in mind, but I do agree that the cost of healthcare is the real problem with the healthcare system in America and is also the biggest issue that Obamacare fails to address. 

Nevertheless, it was great to have this panel come out and address one of the biggest problems many have of the new law; just not knowing what it is and how it works.  

US and the Immigration Crisis

U.S. Immigration Reform still remains one of America’s hot topics of discussion, but has not seen significant progress when it comes to resolving the issue. There’s no denying the U.S. is facing a significant immigration problem. There are more than 11 million people in the U.S. who are crossing the border illegally and living here undocumented, but there seems to be no easy way to deal with this problem. On one hand the U.S. needs legal immigration, but at the same time we need to be able to enforce those laws we have in place. 

We have a right to legal immigration. It’s good for our county and is seen as a founding idea that helped create the U.S. today. But our legal immigration system needs to be modernized if it is to effectively and efficiently service the needs of people today. With the rise in global violence and the recent terrorist attacks, it is essential that we have real enforcement of immigration laws, and improved infrastructure at the border is the best place to start. A secure border is one of the first steps the U.S. needs to take in order to effectively control this problem. It is unbelievable to think that we have no way of tracking who enters the country year by year. The U.S. needs operational control of the border and have a way of tracking when visitors enter or leave the country.

Strengthened border security is not specific to combating illegal immigration, but also addresses the integrity of U.S. national security as well. Undocumented immigration is not the only problem the U.S. border is facing when the issue of immigration reform is brought to the table for debate. With the rise in drug cartel movement and violence spilling over from Mexico into the U.S., the new War on Drugs finds its front lines on the border. Shipments of various drugs, weapons and other illegal activity across the border are compromising the national security of the U.S.  

As for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the country, they must be dealt with in a compassionate, yet responsible way. I believe that a majority of these undocumented immigrants are hard-working people trying to find a better life for themselves and their families, much like the colonists who gave birth to the U.S. more than 200 years ago. But what I don’t believe is the idea that these people are simply crossing the border to sponge off of our welfare programs and bankrupt America. It is an absurd assumption to think this about the intention of undocumented immigrants, and it paints a bad picture of those who have come to work and earn their way.

New immigration reforms being proposed by the now famous “Gang of Eight” seem to be making ground on this field. Composed of four senators from the Republican Party and four from the Democratic Party, this bipartisan group hopes to finally pass a long, overdue bill for comprehensive immigration reform. The proposal recognizes that the current system is broken and needs to be modernized, and they go about this by laying out four basic pillars to be followed:

1) Securing our borders

2) Reforming our current legal system to be fair and just

3) Creating an effective employment verification system

4) Creating an improved process for admitting future immigrants seeking to enter our country to work.

This new process may come off as stark or daunting for the people who are already living here illegally since they will have to go to the back of the line behind those who have entered legally. But, there are certain provisions that will expedite this process (e.g. expedited green cards for “DREAMers” and agriculture workers).

The new comprehensive immigration reform, for the most part, is similar to that of the president’s policy laid out in the White House Blueprint for Reform, but differs in key points that will surely cause debates as the proposal moves forward. Where the president focuses on an immediate pathway to citizenship, the proposal by the “Gang of Eight,” seen in the Bipartisan Framework for Immigration Reform, focuses primarily on border security. Both predict a 13-year wait for citizenship, so it can be expected that there will be a long road to citizenship regardless of whose policy will triumph over the others.

The bill isn’t final so we should expect to see changes here and there before the final bill is polished and hits the Senate floor before traveling to the House.

June 3, 2013

Abbott is best bet for Texas

“My job description includes getting up every morning, going to work, and suing the Obama
Administration to defend Texas values” boasts Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in his
website blog July 17, 2013. 

And Abbott has been doing exactly that for the past decade since winning his seat back in 2002, suing the Obama Administration 27 times. With many Texans still sitting uneasy with Obamacare right around the corner, it is comforting to know the fight will continue should Abbott win in 2014 for the open seat of Texas Governor. Among other things, a notable victory includes Abbott’s fight to keep the Ten Commandments displayed at the Capital Building in Austin which went all the way up to the Supreme Court in 2005. With a record like this, it is clear that Abbott is a quality candidate for the GOP and Texans alike.

With $18 million in bank for campaign as reported by the Texas Ethics Commission as of June
2013, Abbott is well prepared for a statewide campaign although it does not look like much of a
contested battle for him. Tom Pauken, the only other prominent GOP contender for Texas
Governor, has only managed to raise a little over $200,000 as reported by the Texas Ethics
Commission as of June 2013. With 100 times more campaign funds to work with, it’s clear that
Abbott has the advantage over Pauken. Fundraising ability can be a determining factor in
running a successful and competitive campaign, especially across the huge state of Texas.
Money talks and when it comes to winning the votes of Texans, Abbott’s voice is loud and clear.
Based on campaign funds alone it is clear that Abbott is set win not only the primary, but also the
general election.

Being a conservative candidate in a red state doesn’t hurt your chances either. In a PPP Poll back
in July 2, when asked if the candidates for Governor next year were Republican Greg Abbott and
Democrat Wendy Davis, 48% of voters favored Abbott while only 40% of voters favored Davis.
Although Davis went from unknown Senator to National Star in one night with her 13 hour
filibuster, it still seems it isn’t enough to take on Abbott. Senator Wendy Davis still has not
declared candidacy for Governor Seat but if she does, I’m more than willing to bet she will not
win in the general although I have no doubt she will win the democratic primary. It will be an
uphill climb for any Democratic opponents running for the open seat.

Although Abbott has similar policies to that of Perry, it is unsure if tax subsidies for companies
that bring jobs to Texas will remain. Perry is well known as the “job creator” for Texas using
these subsidies as incentives for companies to move their headquarters and factories to Texas.
Abbott, on the other hand, has a different view on the topic. “Government is supposed to be on
your side, not riding your backs” Abbott said July 14 in a press conference in San Antonio.
Rather than focusing on tax subsidies as incentives to bring businesses to Texas, Abbott is more
focused on revising the tax code itself. What exactly he wants to change and how this will affect
job creation is still unsure at this point but he does ensure that taxes won’t go up in his
evaluation. With the economy still not fully recovered, I feel that this issue on tax codes and job
creation will be a major topic in debates to come. With overwhelming support from Texans and a huge lead in fundraising abilities, it’s astounding to believe how much Abbott has accomplished given his disability. At age 26 Abbott was involved in an accident which left him paralyzed, but this hasn’t seemed to slow him down at all.

And in some ways, it has actually worked to his advantage as it has motivated him to accomplish
more than he ever thought he would. “I’m in a wheelchair. I understand challenges that people
face every day,” Abbott said in a press conference in San Antonio. “We all face those challenges
and I can relate to them and try to lift them up as they overcome adversity.” One slogan that is
often most well-known that Abbott said was “Some politicians talk about having a spine of steel.
I actually have one.” As funny as it sounds, it sure does speak the truth about him.

GOP's war on Obamacare

All other national issues facing the country have been the topic for debate on and off throughout the years, but one major issue still holds the title of the GOP’s Most Wanted. Ever since its creation and presentation in 2008, the Republican Party has waged war on Obamacare; vowing to repeal and rid the country of it as soon as they could. However, their tactics on attacking Obamacare have not been completely effective, and not a lot has changed since the early days of the war.

Of all the major national issues controlling the 2012 presidential election, health care seemed to be the signature issue. For President Barack Obama, Obamacare is the defining accomplishment of his 2008-2012 presidency.  So for Mitt Romney and the GOP, of course, this was one of the key points used in his 2012 campaign.  As part of the republican platform, repealing Obamacare is one of the more focused goals of the Republican Party.  

Ever since it was signed into law in March 2010, Obamacare has been seen as a controversial law by many Americans. With pressure from the Republican Party and other non-supporters, it was a shock to see the constitutionality upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2012.  

But what is all the controversy over?  In a Gallup poll taken in June 2012, 52 percent of Americans said they would repeal part, if not all, of the law. Similarly, in a 2012 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 56 percent of people surveyed were against the new Obamacare plan. Of course Romney’s campaigning and GOP propaganda has done its best to demonize this new health care plan and paint it out as exactly what America doesn’t need. There are many aspects to the new health care plan that don’t make much sense at all or seem necessary. Open any pamphlet or watch any ad on Obamacare and you’ll hear about how much it burdens businesses to provide health care coverage to their employees or how it drains $716 billion out of Medicare to fund itself. But, the real problem people and the Republican Party have with the new health care plan is the mandate. Nobody likes to be told what to do, much less buy something they may not be able to afford. Fail to comply with this mandate and one faces the penalty of an annual fee, which gets thrown up to the IRS, and nobody likes the IRS. With already low approval ratings for the IRS amid the whole scandal, I don’t see this plan gaining much more favor.  

When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, it was upheld not as a regulation of commerce, but as a tax. Another tax Obama promised he would not burden on the middle class. Of all the points the GOP has been attacking Obamacare on, I feel they haven’t pushed this fact as much as they should. The only thing Americans pull out of this new plan is universal health care, and of course that is a great idea many people would agree on. The problem then lies on the failure for Americans to fully understand, or have some understanding, of what Obamacare consists of and how it affects us, the medical community and our economy.  If Romney and the GOP would have hit harder on the fact that the new plan is a tax burden, I feel people would have a better understanding of why Republicans are so against this new health care plan.  
As mentioned earlier, this is probably the highlight to be recognized in Obama’s presidency, which is very surprising that this was all he managed to do during his first term, a term where his party controlled Congress yet still managed to claim the title of “The do nothing 112th.” Romney made a good effort in pointing out that in Obama’s first two years in office, during a Democratic Party majority congress, he didn’t get anything major passed or even come up with a balanced budget in more than 1,000 days.  This has got to be a red flag to Obama supporters and many undecided voters.  Like many Americans, I’m disappointed to see that in these past four years in office, Obamacare is all Obama has to show for himself.  

Three years out from the next presidential election, the GOP is still determined to kill Obamacare with promises that the next president will be Republican and will execute these promises. I do not know what issues will be facing America in the next three years, but I don’t doubt Obamacare will still be a dominating issue. As new phases of Obamacare begin to take effect, we may see a lessening focus on its eradication as people accept the new policies. However, if things turn sour in a hurry, as many —including myself — believe, we could find ourselves right back in November 2012 with candidates finely split between pro-Obamacare and anti-Obamacare.