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

[DanTex]

49. ...

In your post, you made a claim, but did not point anything about his methodology. About false positives, that would be one percent of positives, not one percent of all responses. Out of 100 people, 10 say yes, a one percent false positive would mean 0.1 instead of 1. Correct?

One percent false positive rate means that, among all people for whom the true answer is "no", one percent of those people say "yes".

external validation checks, such as?

Look, I've had long debates about this, in which I've responded to the points Kleck is making several times. Briefly, in order for Kleck to be right, not just one but several measurements of crime rates from NCVS have to be wrong by an order of magnitude. Also the FBI numbers have to be wrong. And NCVS is a much higher quality survey than KG -- teams of sociologists have spent years refining the NCVS methodology and testing it to ensure it is as accurate as possible. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that KG kept their false positive rate below 1%, which would be necessary for his results to be valid, since many (most) phone surveys have an FP rate above 1%. Etc. I've been over this before, and all you seem to do is cut and paste Kleck's words that I've already replied to.

Here is honest question, who were these judges? Were the familiar with the laws with that place at that time for individual gun use? What exactly was deemed illegal?
How was "socially desirable" defined? What basis did they define what was and what was not socially desirable? What information did they have to come to these conclusions?

I don't know. But I think it's pretty safe to assume the judges were familiar with the laws in place. The whole point is that, unlike Kleck, H actually went out to recruit other people who were not involved with the research to decide what was legal or socially desirable. Yes, "socially desirable" is not a precisely defined concept, but then neither is "defensive", and K just took the word of the survey respondents about the defensiveness of their DGUs. Funny how that doesn't seem to bother you at all, and yet you get all nitpicky when it comes to H's methodology, which, while imperfect, is clearly better.

Did I go in depth, no. Hemenway's speculation is a problem. And no, I was not lying about your willingness or ability to have civil conversations. You had one with one person or two. Big fucking deal. Can you do it with most of the folks here? Me specificlly? No. Not once. Every post of yours to me has been anything but civil or reasoned. In DU2, you posts directed at me specifically, were deleted because of personal attacks directed at me specifically. Can you show one or even two posts to me that were civil and reasoned? I seriously doubt it. Granted I responded in kind. Then it was my intellect, and now my honesty. Of course you will demand to see the DU2 deleted posts as evidence, and then claim I was lying when the impossible can't be done.
So I think your hero is a shill and not the "respected scientist" you claim he is. Fucking deal with it. So some Criminologists came up with results they did not expect and you don't like. Fucking deal with it. Science should have no ideology.

Blah blah blah. I don't doubt your intelligence or your integrity. But you do have a habit of posting things that aren't true. And you seem to know a lot about the circumstances surrounding the science, but not so much about the content. That's what makes me think you are approaching the issue ideologically.