Reynolds continues to insist people don’t understand his point that the panel is stacked with anti-gun advocates.
He and Kopel had three good points in their article. The first is that the original mission statement concerned only the detrimental effects of gun availability. As Reynolds points out, this was changed.
Second, no one on the panel has done significant research into the benefits of gun ownership is included. Gary Kleck seems like a natural for this panel. Kleck isn’t perfect, but he is one of the few researchers with such a background and generally is serious about research design and quantitative analysis. While his work isn’t perfect, no one’s is. For critiques of his work, see Tim Lambert’s archive of Gun Control Postings.
Third, Benjamin Civiletti appears to have no expertise in the social science aspect of understanding crime. He should not be on the panel.
The rest of their complaints rather telling of how they view social science as a enterprise of confirming one’s biases instead of actual research. First, despite the amount of information out there debunking Lott’s statistical findings, they say:
Nor is there any agenda for "strategies" to improve public safety by fostering gun ownership and carrying by law-abiding people ? even though social-science data from John Lott and others overwhelmingly show that this strategy really does reduce crime.
As frequent readers here have been subjected to my rants on this subject, Lott’s work does nothing of the sort. Reynolds has in the past always allowed himself an out that he can’t speak for the statistics. Here is news for Reynolds–he does in the paragraph above. If he doesn’t have the expertise than he either needs to get that expertise or stop schilling for Lott.
Kopel and Reynolds are poor journalists as well. Describing Levitt as ‘rabidly anti-gun’ was silly from an anonymous quote. It added little to the story and a better way in which to demonstrate bias would be to demonstrate where he has expressed anti-gun ideas. Kopel tries to in the Corner by providing the text of a letter to Levitt written soon after the original article.
I’m not arguing (at least not in this post), that Levitt’s statements are incorrect, and they are certainly not "rabid." But if a person selecting panelists for the NAS study were looking for panelists who might be expected to see benefits from reducing "easy availability of guns," it would have been reasonable to pick Levitt. There is nothing logically inconsistent with a scholar favoring gun control to address the very large problem of criminal homicide with guns, while also recognizing that the magnitude of the problem of fatal gun accidents involving children is not nearly as large as the media imply.
What Kopel misses is that a conclusion based on evidence isn’t necessarily anti-gun even if it points out the negative impacts a gun may have. If the researcher is good and a bit lucky, they have established a relationship that theoretically represents the relationship in the real world. While I’m not naive enough to believe all social science research is done that way all of the time, one can hope–and Steve Levitt’s reputation, as Brad DeLong points out, is quite strong. Believe it or not, some researchers actually test hypotheses to determine if they fit the evidence.
But the continue the inuendo against the other members as well:
Most of them have reputations as being antigun.
What does that mean? If one wants to argue their work is inaccurate, that would be one thing. But if the work is strong and their conclusions demonstrate negative impacts of guns, that is not ‘anti-gun’–it is pro-empirical evidence. Asking people around here, both Rick Rosenfeld and Linda Cottler have excellent reputations as good scientists.
Perhaps it is their background as law professors that is the problem. While law journals serve their purpose, I’m a bit mystified by this almost post modern view of social science Kopel and Reynolds seem to be promoting. A fair panel is one that examines the issue from a social scientific view–not just a balance of pro and con. I understand the funding throws up flags, but attacking the professional credibility of social scientists without any evidence other than anonymous sources and simple assertion:
The closest that anyone on the panel gets to not being entirely antigun is James Q. Wilson
Kopel and Reynolds don’t seem to grasp that there claim of bias in the context they are using it is a claim of professional incompetence and an attack on every members’, except Wilson’s, character. The level of cynicism reaches the silly level here. They assume everyone is a hack and so the point of a panel like this is that hacks from both sides should be included. Fortunately, everyone is not a hack and this isn’t a post-modern universe. Hacks should be excluded from such a panel–including Civiletti and Lott. When Reynolds complains that DeLong does not understand Reynolds’ argument, it is Reynolds who is confused. Reynolds thinks this panel is similar to the Kass Panel on Bioethics. A panel studying ethics is far different than a panel studying methodology. It isn’t the point to ideologically or philosophically balance the panel, but to methodologically balance the panel.
The essential problem that Kopel and Reynolds identify is that most serious researchers haven’t found a lot of evidence that easy gun access has a positive influence on society. Some of this is due to asking the wrong questions. Kleck is one of the few researchers to serious tackle the question of defensive gun use. Most of the interesting questions around gun availability and use revolve around the impact on crime–and thus the picture is of negative impacts. The bias isn’t political as it is question based. The interesting questions promote study of issues that promote negative findings because they study negative phenomenon such a crime. The best people to think about that problem are those who understand the complex research design issues of crime and pathology–exactly the kind of people on the panel. Looking at the panel membership, I’m certain they understand the problem far better than people like Lott who seem to be primarily interested in schilling their findings to make a buck.
And this brings the question back to who else they would like to see on the panel. Given Lott’s incompetence, only Gary Kleck seems like a natural. Who else works in the area, is competent and has found positive impacts?
I’m willing to give Reynolds a free pass on the anonymous quote (though not on using it in the first place)—it would appear he got used. If that is the case, John Lott should start to consider how burning such bridges with his most ardent supporters will affect his future support. Then again, it may not matter to Lott, if I’m correct. I believe his work is motivated to provide him a cushy lifestyle supported by those who want his findings to be correct. He wouldn’t be the first person in academia or related enterprises to do so, but he sure seems to have an especially strong knack for it.
ArchPundit