It would seem that some wag has had some fun at poor Professor Reynolds' expense. Reynolds has an update with an email supposedly from one Brendan Dooher that reads:
I worked with the study director at the National Academy of Sciences (he is actually in the National Academy of Engineering) when I was a Fellow there last year. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the study is heavily biased. I made myself persona non grata there over my year because of my conservative (but always scientifically based) views. The committee's first meeting had multiple speakers from Hand Gun [Control] Inc and other anti-gun types giving testimony - but no one to speak of the positives. I asked him if he would have Professor John Lott speak and the reply was a sneer. (I should state that the study director was a typical liberal type - goatee, whiny voice, upset at the stolen election - much like most of the people I encountered there (except the goatee...)
However, in the same posting Reynolds writes:
I noted a report by Sam MacDonald of Reason who attended the first meeting of the panel and who thought it seemed reasonably fair.
And if you look at MacDonald's report you find:
the committee did hear from an NRA spokesman, and there was some talk of trying to calculate the benefits of gun ownership along with the costs.
Reynolds also mentions the "considerable discussion on an email list". Prominent in that discussion was the fact that Lott had spoken to the panel as you can see here. I don't think it was right for "Dooher" to play such a mean trick on Reynolds, but Reynolds really should have noticed that the stuff "Dooher" was telling him was plainly false.
Expect to see something like the following at InstaPundit.com soon:
FURTHER UPDATE: Archbishop Heywood Jablome, reader and astronaut, emails:I can confirm that the NAS Panel is like, totally biased. I talked to the panel commissar and while twirling his moustache he told me: "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us are totally disarmed."
Interesting. I checked Google and got 529 hits for "Heywood Jablome", so that establishes his bona fides. Heh.
Tom Spencer comments on Kopel's "update" to his attack on the NAS panel.
ArchPundit has a short post about Lott's weighting and a long, interesting post on the Kopel/Reynolds attack on the NAS Panel. I think he nails the problem with the Kopel/Reynolds approach when he writes:
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.