thank you, Mr. Hoffa. I thought I was losing it.

Facts are WAY TOO scary. Why would we want to do that?

I have no problems with your opinion. After all, we all have and are all entitled to our own opinion. I just, as I often do, question your analysis, rational, and logic used in coming to the conclusions that you did on this topic, thus the reason for presenting my commentary to your opinion piece in the point-by-point fashion. I do apologize if for any reason I came off as 'condescending,' as I assure you – that was not my intention.

The sources for the NYC example I utilized above come from a report prepared and presented by Patrick A Langan and Matthew R Durose to the 2003 International Conference on Crime held in Rome, Italy, entitled: ‘The Remarkable Drop In Crime In New York City.” Within the thesis, they compare statistical data compiled by NYC, the State of NY, and the US federal government and compare the numbers in a ‘before and after’ type analysis to Goetz’s now infamous incident. They also look at many of the reforms instituted in NYC in the wake of Goetz as well as the psychological impact that the prospect of potential vigilante response had on the criminal element within the City. A very interesting read to say the least.

However, in all fairness, you should issue a correction regarding your stated mix-up of the Republican Presidential Primary debates, as the Tea Party did not sponsor the debate wherein Brian Williams asked Gov Perry about his death penalty executions in Texas – that was the MSNBC debate.

So, essentially, the Poltifact piece could ultimately find no direct correlation to concealed carry and crime in general, thus debunking any statistical or logic based arguments favoring either side of the issue. Ergo, in using logic to summarize a conclusion premised upon the Politifact findings, concealed carry does not influence crime at all. But, this only holds true if you consider a purely statistical analysis to be the end-all on this issue, as the only source Politifact considered was statistical data sets – and even then in a broad and general fashion.

They did not account for the prevalent psychological impacts that were found in NYC during the Goetz study, nor does is take into account the impact and reform based changes that probably only took place at that time because of Goetz doing what he did. Logic also dictates that crime is going to be more omnipresent in places where you have large and dense populations vs those with small and scattered populations. And of course, there are many other factors to consider as well – the list could essentially be endless considering the complexities of the human species. That is why it is my opinion and belief that a micro-analysis of the situation provides a far better look at the situation, ergo my reasoning for utilizing the NYC example.

However, the crux of the rational utilized in your piece appears to be more about 'accidental' incidents arising from the practice of concealed carry where such is lawfully permitted. As this is apparently where you decided to hang your hat in making the conclusions that you arrived at, I thought that you would have researched this area more in depth instead of relying on your 'gut' speculations and conjectures, as I previously addressed.

By the way - I never get my 'facts' from Fox News, or any other 'news' source for that matter unless they are the primary source of the 'fact' that I'm referencing, such as an interview or something of that nature. I prefer to use primary sources when available, and only where unavailable or impractical do I revert to impartial and credible scholarly sources and the like.

I liked you comment and unlike Duane you backed it up with verifiable facts. Amazing that he doesn't understand short and factual reaches more minds.........
Thank you.

I concur with the above response. As usual, we have many lazy commentors here.
I would appreciate some fact checking not the opines of ignorance. Quick to chime in without realty based knowledge.

No problem. But in all fairness, would you at least acknowledge your error about the debates?

hrg...all you have to do is go to any official state website and look for the numbers. They are all there. Most states require these records to be published. In fact most states do so as a matter of law. A good reporter would gather facts from the only source that can't sway facts either way. And that would be the state office that is held responsible to keep such records. I should also let you know that i have lived in states where CC is allowed. I have NEVER seen an incident. However when i am out late at night plowing, I have witnessed several crimes being committed. I always called the police but by the time they got there...it was too late and it was just another victim.

Sorry, don't mean to 'split hairs' on something that doesn't really matter. It's just that knowing your political leanings, which you expressly state in the piece above, and by lumping the two very separate events together and choosing to refer to it as the Tea Party debate (as opposed to saying that both occurred at the MSNBC debate), one could get the impression that you wanted your readers to think of those aligning themselves with the Tea Party as somehow being celebratory of death penalty executions - which is wholly unsubstantiated. I think you can agree that had you erred on saying both occurred at the MSNBC debate, such a perceived connotation about the 'Tea Party' would not exist.

I'm sure it was just a honest mistake and have no reason to believe otherwise. However, others who may not be as familiar with your work as I am could very reasonably perceive that via such error you were intending to get people to associate the 'Tea Party' with being pro death penalty executions. However, nowhere in any of the many self-declared 'Tea Party' platforms can I find any official position being taken on such issue by the group.

The reference to the Ron Paul question of 'would you just let them die' is at least a fairer representation of 'Tea Party' values, as they do in fact believe in government non-interference and the principles behind taking self responsibility for one’s own welfare.

Full disclosure, I am politically independent and do not consider myself a member of the Tea Party movement or any other political party. I was briefly registered as a member of Ross Perot's now defunct United We Stand/Reform Party before the Party disbanded following Governor Ventura's election in Minnesota.

Forgot the "h."

Sorry for the spelling error.

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

However, I'm not familiar with the study that you referenced.

There is an abundance of information about Goetz easily available online. Just type his name in any search engine and start reading. Although Goetz never claimed to be influenced by the film, his actions of vigilante justice aboard the New York City subway train bear a striking resemblance and similarity to the events depicted in fictional character Paul Kersey’s, played by Charles Bronson, first vigilante kill aboard a New York City subway train in 1974’s Death Wish. However, the film preceded Goetz’s actions by a decade. An example of life imitating art?

I didn't realize that just because someone possesses a gun automatically makes them predisposed to beget violence with violent behavior. Interesting position, but a highly illogical analysis (or lack thereof) and conclusion. Oh ya, and I apologize for wanting to intelligently comment beyond a mere sound-bite in trying to add to the discussion - so sorry that I upset you! But not really :-)

If you actually took the time to read my prior statements, you'd see that I never claimed to have the right answer pertaining to this issue. I merely attempt to use facts and logic to add to the discussion. I have a very open mind. Apparently, you do not. Try again.

Great discussion killer this :if you don't like it here, go........
What has "this is after all America" to do with Mr. Roberts point that he feels safer in the UK?
You should go back to the corner tavern and continue your discussion there!

Why do my views, when coupled to the JRH screen name, 'sicken' you? I tried using my real name on other boards. This allowed people to look me up online and start a tele- harassment campaign against me. Needless to say, I did not enjoy the experience, so I decided to take a screen name instead. The late James R Hoffa is a personal HERO of mine. And guess what - 1) he didn't agree with the concept of PUBLIC SECTOR unions any more than the late FDR did; and 2) he was a very CONSERVATIVE man, even going so far as to endorse and vote for REPUBLICAN Richard M. Nixon in all three of his Presidential runs.

The liberal Kennedy's were a destructive force to the true American way. They attempted to soil Hoffa and others in a way far worse than anything that Joseph McCarthy ever did, and yet for some reason or another McCarthy is vilified by history while the Kennedy's are celebrated. That is what makes me truly SICK!!!

Oh really, and which of my 'facts' is inaccurate? You may want to read 'Hoffa: The Real Story,' as written by the man himself. If you do so, you may just be surprised by what you learn. The Teamsters of today is nothing like it was under the leadership of Hoffa, Sr.

Are you even aware that in the recent history of your union, the Teamsters have endorsed both Ronald Reagan (in both bids) and George H.W. Bush (in both bids)? And yet, all contenders in the current Republican field are trying to embody Reagan's aura in making their respective bids toward getting the 2012 nomination. So why aren't the Teamsters now endorsing who ever the Republican candidate may be instead of Mr. Obama? Why did you guys like Reagan so much in the '80's, but apparently not today? Remember, the Teamsters still endorsed Reagan in his re-election even after he broke the air-traffic controllers strike. I'm very confused here. Could you help me out and explain this to me.

Hey John, how does it feel to know that by the year 2016 or so....teamsters will be gone. After all, the guy that bought out Yellow, Rodeway, and USF Holland is doing a splended job of killing it off. Last i checked the stock was under $1.00 a share. Now ABF is looking kinda weak as well. They (ABF) trtied something called "express" and it didn't work so well. Oh well. I f I were you, I would retires ASAP!

I never said that the Kennedy's succeeded, but that they were merely destructive in the same fashion that the former George W. Bush was - unlawful wiretaps, unauthorized political assassinations, etc. And the Kennedys were far worse communist mongers than McCarthy ever was - just look at the McClellan Hearings. And yet, they had the veracity to vilify McCarthy!!! The Kennedys were HYPOCRITES to the extreme!!!

And if Robert Kennedy was so honorable, then why didn't he jump from the Capitol dome after Hoffa was acquitted the first couple of times like he promised he would? The Kennedys were masters of the 'do as I say and not as I do' philosophy.

And do I have to even mention all of John's womanizing and infidelity? What a wonderful leader by example. And yet, this man was idolized. Is it just a coincidence that divorces really started their now historic rise during and immediately following his administration? No wonder the divorce rate is so very high today.

In the words of the great Jimmy Hoffa, Sr., the Kennedys were nothing "but a bunch of rum runners!"

JRH
thank you for your elaborations on the Kennedy's, the only oproblem I see with them are possibly low ethics and questionable morals, but I do not see anything they did that would destroy my way of living (I hope it is the true American way??)

You guys are always so quick with throwing big phrases out and gneralizing the world around us. Boy, I hope people would start big stuff with: In my opinion......

So, I guess you're OK with unlawful wiretaps (of which they set the precedent) and unauthorized use of American resources to carry out unauthorized political assignations (Castro, who we were never at war with). I guess it really depends on what your definition of 'living in America' is. To me, I don't think of it as being very American for our political leaders to be able to live outside and above the same set of laws that the rest of us are bound by under threat of capture and prosecution by the very same government that makes those laws. And in fact, if I’m not mistaken, that was one of the primary concerns of our founding fathers as well.

But if you’re OK with this, more power to you! Just like you said, it's all a matter of personal opinion and preference. Personally, I don’t like the government unlawfully invading my privacy, as I view our right to certain privacies as being a tantamount and integral part of what it means to be an American. Your view to the contrary is very interesting to say the least.

JRH
But weren't Nixon and Reagan the absolute masters in those things you complain about?

But what if this leads to the situation which could convince the thugs to shoot as soon as something moves in the house? They might want to do this, because they know that they could be shot at. this would mean, the entire gun violence would escalate, and everything would be like before, only on a much more dangerous level?

The new Concealed Carry Law did not change anything in that regard. People have always had the right to have a weapon in their home and use it against intruders...

Of course, no one can really say how each individual union member cast their ballot, and as you've pointed out, a variety of factors go into that choice. I was merely responding to john's comments wherein he inferred that union people, especially ones with the celebrity of James R. Hoffa, could never be politically conservative.

I merely pointed out that the IBT endorsed Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. (something that Newman apparently selectively forgot about in penning his propaganda). Another thing that Mr. Newman selectively forgot to mention is the highly questionable credibility of F.C. Duke Zeller, who's book Newman premises his entire analysis and conclusions upon by accepting Zeller’s assertions as facts. This is highly irresponsible.

Respected critics have noted that the book is "short on verifiable fact, while big on conspiracy theory," that " Zeller adds very little of substance," that his "writing is leaden," and "that the book appears to be more a work of fiction than reality." It would be like using the new anti-Palin book, which has been slammed as nothing more than a propaganda piece written by an opportunist by even the most liberal of critics, to formulate a thesis, analysis, and come to intelligent conclusions about her character and persona.

How does the old saying go... "garbage in, garbage out." Perhaps Newman should go back to journalism school and learn to be a little more selective with his sources. Not to mention his grammatical errors.

Interesting.

I assumed you the chose the name based upon irony.

I guess you learn something new every day.