parking lot incident

[joelr]

It's ridiculous to reject anything without examining it on its own merits. If the top expert in, say, Linux, happened to be anti-gun, would that make his Linux book useless?

Well color me ridiculous, yes I would refuse to purchase his Linux book if he was openly anti-gun and supported such causes, I will not give him money to spend against me. The same goes for why I do not use Paypal, ebay, and others that support causes that attempt to eradicate my Rights and privileges.........

When are you going to give up using Microsoft products? Bill Gates is virulently antigun. (I'm not sure that Linus and/or RMS aren't, but when you use their products, you're not giving either of them money.)

[princewally]

Bill Gates is virulently antigun. (I'm not sure that Linus and/or RMS aren't, but when you use their products, you're not giving either of them money.)

Funny, but most of the people I know aren't giving Microsoft any money when they use their products, either.

[Rags]

Andrew Rothman wrote:

It's ridiculous to reject anything without examining it on its own merits. If the top expert in, say, Linux, happened to be anti-gun, would that make his Linux book useless?

This may be the worst analogy I've seen in about a year. Try this, instead: a guy who claims to be an expert on all forms of aviation but dismisses the value of parachutes, saying, "Have you ever heard of a parachute saving anybody's life?" No, I would not read his book.

Being anti-gun would not make the Linux guy's book useless. But de Becker actually runs a company that specializes in providing security for people. So he's in the business. He should know the value, or lack of value, of firearms when used by individuals to protect themselves. Obviously he does not, since he's never even heard of the Gary Kleck studies, nor is he aware of the "Armed Citizen" section in American Rifleman.

On his website, right next to "Advanced threat asessment and management academy," I find an item fascinatingly titled "Combating the fear of terrorism." Got that? It's not terrorism we need to fear, but the fear of terrorism.

The guy may have some worthwhile ideas when it comes to personal safety, but he sounds like a pompous know-nothing to me.

[hammAR]

Bill Gates is virulently antigun. (I'm not sure that Linus and/or RMS aren't, but when you use their products, you're not giving either of them money.)

Funny, but most of the people I know aren't giving Microsoft any money when they use their products, either.

[someone1980]

Linux and Guns:
Eric S. Raymond is a positive, highly visable member of the Linux community who is a "gun nut" (see page below)
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/

Gift of Fear:
This person can still have good information about one part of a subject, and have a wrong idea on another. Pick out the good leave the bad.

On the not supporting him, how much is not getting mugged worth to you vs have $2 deposited (if that) into his account? Joel correct me if I am wrong on how much an author gets per book.

[tt3]

Why is this even an issue? Get the book at the library, read what you want from it and return it.
Library, its FREE.

I haven't finished the book, and neither has my wife, but we get the point anyway, and I recommend it too.

[hammAR]

Deleted by author.........................

[SethB]

I do not recommend the De Becker book -- not because I've read it and found it wanting, but because I saw the guy beng interviewed on TV and he was too obviously anti-gun to be taken seriously.

It's ridiculous to reject anything without examining it on its own merits. If the top expert in, say, Linux, happened to be anti-gun, would that make his Linux book useless?

No, because guns are irrelevant to his topic.

If he were anti-perl, that would make his book much less useful than it otherwise could be.

[SethB]

On his website, right next to "Advanced threat asessment and management academy," I find an item fascinatingly titled "Combating the fear of terrorism." Got that? It's not terrorism we need to fear, but the fear of terrorism.

That makes sense.

If we eliminated foolish fear of terrorism, I'd save half an hour every time I took a plane.

[someone1980]

He reminds me of another security researcher. Bruce Schneier.

He talk about people spending tons of money on the things that are very unlikely to happen, while ignoring the simpler more likely things. He is also anti-gun and lives in MN.

[Andrew Rothman]

First, let me stipulate that de Becker's employees carry and use guns to protect their clients. He is clearly aware of their value, but is blinded by his beliefs when it comes to individuals. Kind of like otherwise-rational scientists who believe in creationism.

That said, it's still ridiculous to dismiss what he may have to offer without even looking at it.

[Rags]

First, let me stipulate that de Becker's employees carry and use guns to protect their clients. He is clearly aware of their value, but is blinded by his beliefs when it comes to individuals. Kind of like otherwise-rational scientists who believe in creationism.

That said, it's still ridiculous to dismiss what he may have to offer without even looking at it.

So. . . you're saying that you would read a book by an "otherwise-rational scientist" who believed in creationism?

And, incidentally, "Creationism" can well include the belief that I subscribe to, that everything was created by a Creator, but that it took billions of years following the Big Bang. In the case of Man, many millions of years.

I agree with other posters who have pointed out that the book is in the library -- along with later books on the same topic. I did glance through a copy there, incidentally, before writing the blog item. But there are only so many hours in the day, and I am confining myself to reading things written by authors I can respect, not bloviators.

[hammAR]

I am confining myself to reading things written by authors I can respect, not bloviators.

Can I use that line..........................

[joelr]

First, let me stipulate that de Becker's employees carry and use guns to protect their clients. He is clearly aware of their value, but is blinded by his beliefs when it comes to individuals. Kind of like otherwise-rational scientists who believe in creationism.

That said, it's still ridiculous to dismiss what he may have to offer without even looking at it.

So. . . you're saying that you would read a book by an "otherwise-rational scientist" who believed in creationism?

I don't know about him, but I not only would, but have -- by your definition. (I didn't know it at the time -- and it wouldn't have bothered me if I did -- but my college chem professor was a believing Catholic, and made no secret of it.)

[Rags]

I am confining myself to reading things written by authors I can respect, not bloviators.

Can I use that line..........................

Permission granted.