Is it proper for a "scientist" to be seen with an advocacy group

[gejohnston]

10. let me repprase that

I'm not sure what what "Hemenway is valid" means, but let's start with the fact that he is a highly regarded professor at Harvard, one of the top public health departments in the nation.

That is work is actually valid. Actually, his chairmanship is funded by the Joyce Foundation. Do you seriously think that I'm going to take your word that he is highly regarded?

On top of that, he has an extensive publication record in reputable peer reviewed journals. And then there's the fact that the NRA crowd never seems to come up with any substantive criticism of his research, they just keep on trying to dismiss him (and the dozens of other academics who have committed the sin of publishing scientific research on gun violence) as "invalid" because of his ties to gun violence charity groups.

So do his critics. And I have yet to see any "gun control advocate" come up with any substantive criticism of any criminologist that contradicts or challenges him.

By the way, the only people who think that gun violence charities are fighting a "culture war" are gun ideologues. To the reality-based community, they are working towards solutions to a problem that costs 30,000 American lives every year.

Sorry, a peer reviewed article in a criminology publication trumps your nonsense.

And, yes, I get that there are a small number of contrarian academics who push the pro-gun line, but their main results have been refuted several times over in the literature.

None of them have been refuted. The proper academic term is countered.

So it's no coincidence that that paper you cite about how "Gary Kleck is right and the rest of the world is wrong" is written by none other than Gary Kleck.

How narrow minded and anti-intellectual of you. It was a peer reviewed article. If you discount Kleck without reading it, then you are saying there is something wrong with the peer review process. But according to you, Hemenway is always right because he is peer reviewed. Can you come up with a substitutive critique?

The fact that Kleck, Wright, and Rossi are the only criminologists you have ever heard of doesn't make them the only ones that exist. It's really just a statement about your selective reading of the academic literature.

The same could be said of you. You only read, or claim to read, the same six or seven economists and MDs. Actually, I have heard of quite a few.