Does Violence Policy Center represent the People? (Part 1)

In order to justify their political agenda, gun control organizations often claim that “most Americans” support various restrictive laws. For example, Mayors Against Illegal Guns published a report last year stating: Nearly 60 percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws. A majority of Americans, 59 percent, believe that the laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict than they are currently. This is very similar to the 56 percent of Americans who said so in a January 2007 poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. A third of the public, 33 percent, think that gun laws should be kept the same, and only 7 percent believe that they should actually be made less strict. With such polling numbers, it seems reasonable that gun control organizations should have large, active membership, just like the National Rifle Association with its “nearly four million members.”

Violence Policy Center (VPC) considers itself to be an influential player in promoting gun control policies which will ostensibly make the public safer: Each year, the VPC releases hard-hitting, fact-based studies on a full range of gun violence issues. Recognizing the VPC’s groundbreaking research and unique expertise, VPC staff are frequently quoted by the national news media and relied upon by policymakers. The VPC also works with national, state, and local advocacy organizations representing affected constituencies—such as women, children, minorities, consumers, and public health practitioners—to keep our neighborhoods, homes, schools, and workplaces safe from gun violence.

The question is: Does Violence Policy Center actually represent the public’s views?

One way to determine if an organization has true public support is to see if they garner a certain amount of membership dues. For example, if an organization’s total annual revenues is $1 million and $750,000 of that came from membership dues, then one can reasonably conclude that since dues represent 75% of revenue, the organization represents part of the public. Further, if annual dues are $25, then the organization has about 30,000 members. Such organizations exist to enable groups of like-minded individuals of average wealth to pool their resources, in order to create greater influence with policy makers; a democratic aspect of our First Amendment rights, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Philanthropic Research has a web site named GuideStar, which contains tax returns for many non-profit organizations. A basic (free) member of GuideStar can access the latest three years’ tax returns of Violence Policy Center. Examining these tax forms highlights some interesting trends.

In 2003, VPC reported $1,671,595 in total revenues. The seven top employees, including Executive Director Josh Sugarman and Legislative Director Kristen Rand, earned $654,514, or 39.2% of total revenue. Downsizing begins

In 2004, VPC replaced two of its highest-paid employees with one lower-paid employee. In 2003, Mathew Nosanchuk earned $129,218 in salary and benefits, while Joseph Sudbay earned $94,102. In 2004, replacement Fiona Harris earned $53,290 in total compensation. Nevertheless, the top five employees received 45.8% of total revenue, because total revenue dropped 41.4% from the 2003 amount.

In 2005, revenue dropped again for a total decrease of 53.7% from 2003, so the same top five employees received 59.6% of total revenues in salary and benefits.

By 2006, Fiona Harris was let go. Nevertheless, the four remaining salaried employees received 57.8% of total revenues, because VPC’s total revenue shrank again.

In 2007, VPC saw a small improvement, mostly by cutting functional expenses by 48.7% since 2003, plus the fact that salaried employees received no raises since 2005, along with $144,227 increase in “direct public support.” (Where this “public support” comes from will be examined in Part 2, because this tells the story of who VPC really represents.)

Nevertheless, between 2003 and 2007 a handful of people saw their piece of the pie grow 23.1%: four employees now take home 48.2% of VPC’s total revenue.

In the beginning of this section, the concept of public support was in part defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. Violence Policy Center’s tax returns included a section entitled “Schedule A, Part IV-A: Support Schedule.” It includes a line item for membership fees.

In a previous article, we examined how civil rights benefit both the individual and society. The question here: How can an organization with no public membership be qualified to dictate policy restricting your civil right of self-defense?

For in-depth analysis of the issues discussed here, read Howard’s book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense.

The VPC also works with national, state, and local advocacy organizations representing affected constituencies—such as women, children, minorities, consumers, and public health practitioners—to keep our neighborhoods, homes, schools, and workplaces safe from gun violence.

Interesting. Apparently guns are harmless to old fat white guys. I might as well get a couple.

Each year, the VPC releases hard-hitting, fact-based studies on a full range of gun violence issues.

Not exactly. Their ideology is different, but so are many of their "facts". The trouble is, there is only one set of facts; the VPCs reports are full of untruths, as well as being masters of creative interpretation or exposition of half-truths.

For example, the VPC repeats the oft-quoted stat of: "13 kids a day" are killed in "gun violence"; "kids" in this case being 0-19 years old, including legal adults, most of whom are criminal gang members 14-19 being killed in gang-on-gang warfare. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens won't do anything to reduce this problem, and might increase it as it emboldens criminals against their possible victims.

Well, if you dig into the numbers a little there seems to a demographic component for the perps as well as a long standing dominant political philosophy where most “gun violence” occurs. But then, you didn't need me to point that out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.