On today’s episode of As The Soap Burns, an open letter with intimate dialog, words of praise and loathing.
Dear BB (alias T of A),
Just thought I’d post a short note for you to ignore. Seems only fair after you poured your heart out to me in eloquent and dulcet phrases for all to see. You’ll find my remarks interspersed with yours, below.
Man, it's raining outside so I thought (just for once) I'd read one of TT's posts from start to finish, and boy, have I learned a lot!
For a moment there I thought the mentally debilitating dehydration effects of the drought had begun to repair itself, with water replacing some of the alcohol in the body volume. But no, your post is so far off topic, even evading same, that it can only be perceived as a concession of defeat on the gun control issue. A debate does not have to be combative. But, if that is all you know, steer the conversation to that, eh?
TT, you are a certifiable mental case mate!
(obvious topic diversion, tactic. Oh well. Trading insults will entertain the group, I guess.)
Oh, now you are a member of yet another the elite group as well. I wasn’t aware you had those credentials, as well. Do you do psychoanalysis as a hobby? Or, do people pay you for that service as well? I really thought gun control advocate, soldier, Master machinist, motorcycle assembler, oil cooler huckster, and pugilist had you pretty busy. Is there no end to your talents, in your own mind?
See, this really validates my point, people with obvious mental illness ..., shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun!
I note that claiming credit for other people’s accomplishments is another of your many talents. It isn’t your point at all. It is part of the U.S. laws restricting gun purchasers that have been in effect since you were able to utter the phrase "ME TOO".
Geez, but if you just want me to fly to America so you can point your big gun at me with the express purpose of frightening me away, thus (in your poor suffering mind) somehow winning this argument, then why not?
Win an argument with you? Oh, I would never expect you to admit that. I’ve long since understood that, while you are talented in many fields of elitism (see above), compilation, understanding of data and how it relates to single subject matter, is not considered a valuable asset for your perception of eliteness. Besides that, you don’t have the ability to stay on topic long enough to even reach a conclusion, let alone an agreement. When it looks like you might lose an argument, you divert attention to something else. Like personal insults that have no basis in anyone’s reality but, perhaps, your own.
I won’t fly you to America because that would advocate violence, which I do not. It’s violent enough over here without you adding to the violence pool. You have already threatened me with violence, and it has apparently pissed you off greatly that I won’t back down and simply say yes sir, Mr. Big man sir, whatever you say is correct, sir.
(Fiction deleted…)
I'm not much of an actor.
Gee, really? But, you’ve tried so many roles! Let’s see, you’ve represented yourself as:
Statistician: More of an impersonation than an actual acting role, don’t you think? Though, I think some of the naive were enthralled with the performance. No awards, though. Real statisticians collect more than 2 or 3 uncorroborated data points.
Researcher: Don’t researchers actually use credible data and delve beyond the superficial? They also read profusely, and are consistently capable of reading entire reports beginning to end. That’s not really you’re forte’, now, is it?
Analyst: an individual of whom the primary function is a deep examination of a specific, limited area.
Let’s look at just one example, shall we?
...it's no wonder that 35,000 of you are killed on average every year from their mis-use, ... Cheers, Terry. 
I haven’t been paid to do research in a few years. But, just to see if my skills are still valid, I went looking for your stat numbers to see if I could determine which end of your body they came from, and if your analysis of "misuse" had some validity. Here’s a "Gun Nut" source:
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htmU.S. Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics - Key Facts at a Glance
Hmm, no 35,000. Terry must have been rounding. Let’s use 1995; 35,957 under the heading of ALL firearm deaths, 51% of those suicide; 18,503, 44% Homicides; 15,835, 3% unintentional; 1,225. 1% Other; 394. OK, so far.
Research continues:
Are these all misuse?
Unintentional- yeah, I gotta agree on that category, that’s misuse.
Other – These are undetermined. Could fall into any category if truth were known.
Suicides – I question misuse. Had the person survived for interview, would he not say the gun did exactly what was intended? Is a person not allowed to choose their own fate? Is each and every taxpayer required to do so until someone else decides it is too costly? Do we then argue about what is a better way to commit suicide? Or, if that is better than living ten years in pain and agony at the whims of anti-gunners?
I’m takin’ these out of the misuse category, sorry.
Homicides – Now this sounds indisputable, until you find out that this stat includes self defense and police shootings. Didn’t BB say that the police should have guns? How many of these Homicides are truly misuse. People don’t have a right to defend themselves?
So, even though I’m certain less than half of Terry’s numbers are actual misuse, lets use the 35K number, anyway, in a cost/benefit calculation. If the police can use guns for good, so can ordinary citizens.
Who’s numbers do you want to use?
Gark Kleck’s survey of 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs)?
DOJ 1994 Survey of 1.5 million?
Or, the highly biased National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000?
Even the most biased calculation puts guns in benefit over cost nearly three to one.
I would have to conclude that Terry failed in his acting role as researcher, as the performance just wasn’t believable. So, Terry’s right, I agree. He’s not much of an actor and an even worse authority on gun control research, statistics and analysis.
Perhaps something in a comedic role would be better suited to your acting abilities?
(More off topic, but highly creative, drivel (hey I’m trying to be nice) deleted…)
(it's not like you'll be spending the holiday with friends, as you don't have that many)
Fairly true, actually. It’s a small circle. But, none of the friends I do have want me defenseless, injured or killed. They also know that I will protect them, as well, if the need arises. If you are trying to imply that our, or any, friendship is threatened by this disagreement, then I would have to question the value of said friendship. Perhaps I might have enjoyed being your friend. But, I won’t be the sycophant you crave.
If, on the other hand, you are implying that you are right and I am wrong simply because of a friendship count, then perhaps your friends aren’t as loyal as you think they are. In that case, numbers don’t matter when it is most important or they are out of your earshot, especially when they learn that your beliefs are based on faulty information.
Anyway, put your money where your mouth is mate, and I'll promise you that at least one of us is gonna have some fun! Cheers, Terry. (Big Bully)
So, let me understand this, BB. If I pay you airfare to the Americas, you’ll switch sides from antigun to pro-gun advocate? Will there be any contractual time limits on this arrangement? Given your track record on argumental accuracy, might we make the bargain for silence on the GC issue for your part? I’m thinking both sides would be better served in that case. But, your offer does say something about your conviction on the issue.
Pretty sure you won’t admit to reading this post, as guile seems to be your modus operandi. You're pretty good with the snide comments. But, I think I might be up to the challenge and we can drag each other into the gutter in a public debaucle. But, I have to ask. Do you want to debate gun control, just hurl insults at one another in a public forum, or agree to disagree?
Cheers mate!
