Legalize Gambling in Texas

It seems one of the hottest topics in the legislature this year is whether or not to legalize gambling. There are very good statistics and arguments that support both sides. The opposition uses other cities that are considered to have failed after gambling legalization. Those in favor of gambling also provide great statistical information on the positive effects of its legalization. So who is correct? In my opinion every state and situation is unique and we won't really know if it is a good or bad decision until we try it.

The legalization of gambling would generate jobs and tax revenue. Currently many Texans serve their gambling needs by going to Louisiana and Oklahoma. Why let those states keep all that tax revenue? We currently support certain forms of gambling such as race tracks and Texas Lotto. The Texas Lottery has the worst odds of any type of gambling and based on research, attracts the poor because of its small price to purchase and its very large payout. People speculate that the legalization of gambling and casinos would create more poverty. Whether casinos open in Texas or not --people who want to gamble will continue to do so no matter how poor or rich they are. Having a casino farther away from "poor people" will not prevent them from spending their last 10 dollars on a Lotto ticket that has 1 in 12 million odds. Some of the issues with research is that they use cities that already had failing economies as examples. In the paper Economic Impacts of Gambling, the author cites a quote from the Los Angeles Times, "But look at Atlantic City. It used to be a slum by the sea, and now, it's a slum by the sea with casinos". We are not trying to bring the Texas economy up from the bottom but improve on it and create more opportunity. Texas is very large and allows for the opportunity to build large casinos and to duplicate the Las Vegas model. With the right measures in place this could bring opportunity.

Another argument is that Casinos attract sex and crime. As stated in the following blog, we already have more than our fair share of a sex problem and we don't have casinos to attract it. How is it that states with Casinos have a smaller share? I do not understand the crime argument. Casinos are known to have some of the highest levels of security and are some of the hardest place to rob. People do not suddenly become violent because casinos open up in their areas, and if casinos attract violent people where would they come from? If you open any major attraction you are bound to have more crime. If you open a large mall, stadium, or a theme park, you increase the number of people located in a small area. Which makes these places targets for thefts, assaults and other crimes. Should we ban all these places to reduce crime?

We will never know if Texas could be the next Las Vegas or if it will bust with the legalization of gambling unless we try it first. Why haven't the cities where gambling has failed to improve the tax revenue or the economy ban gambling? If it is so bad for those states why haven't they stopped? Must not be all that bad!

Students with Weapons?

In the editorial, Guns on campus is a dangerous idea, the author writes about how the Texas Legislature may possibly pass a law allowing guns in bars and schools. The author shares his opinions of how carrying concealed weapons on college campuses would endanger professors and students alike.

I am a bit bias because I support the carrying of concealed weapons, I don't necessarily agree that carrying in bars is a good idea, but overall agree with the right every American has to bear arms. However, putting my bias aside, I feel this article wasn't very well thought out or researched. Also, the main point of the article is Guns on campus and somehow the author deviates to alcohol, "innocent student or professor has been shot by an angry/drunk/stressed student allowed to carry a gun on campus", which assumes the student was drunk and carrying a gun on campus. The author doesn't reference any statistics and writes of groups opposed to the bill but doesn't identify them, "Lawmakers should also consider that public and private colleges in Texas, and their own police departments".

The main argument is that allowing students to carry a concealed gun on campus would endanger lives more than it would protect because the students may act in rage. It seems to me that if the student was that enraged it wouldn't matter if he had taken all the trouble to get a concealed hand gun license in the first place. A "angry/drunk/stressed" student that wanted to shoot his classmates or professor would do so whether he had a license or not. A drunk person is probably more likely to kill an innocent person by driving drunk then by shooting them with their concealed hand gun (which was licensed). Of the 328 murders convictions in Texas in 2006, 1 was by concealed hand gun license holders and of 61,539 total convictions in Texas, 140 belonged to Texas CHL holders. However in the same year there were 1,544 alcohol related traffic fatalities.

In the article, FIREARMS: Concealed carry opposition is irrational, by Scott Lewis, you can see a compelling difference in the argument. Mr. Lewis provides facts, statistics, actual states and schools as evidence to his argument. The article focuses on the issue and doesn't mix topics by moving in the direction of alcoholism.

I always try to look at both sides of any story without using my personal emotions, however I feel that if a person is going to post an editorial and defend very controversial points of view, they should really do some research and provide a better argument.