• Does the VPC's 2002 Alexander Hamilton Second Amendment Student Writing Competition promote junk research, biased research, and academic dishonesty? More "method not educational," cause for loss of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
• Problems with Congressman Rod Blagojevich's character and integrity.

You may contact IRS Customer Service operations concerning tax-exempt organizations at (877) 829-5500 (toll-free number). The call center is open 8:00am to 9:30pm Eastern Time. Or you may write to us at the following address:

Internal Revenue Service
TE/GE Division, Customer Service
P.O. Box 2508
Cincinnati, OH 45201

VPC's Dishonest Attack on Barrett Firearms

"Other evidence of this trend is found in Forbes magazine's report that although military contracts helped push Barrett Firearms Manufacturing revenue from $1 million in 1988 to $8 million last year—growth while the industry overall has been shrinking—civilian sales are what "keep the production lines humming between government contracts, which can take up to a decade to hash out."246 (It is not known whether sales to Al Qaeda are counted under the military or civilian column.)"

Read Barrett Firearms' statement on the VPC's and Tom Diaz's attack. Not only is it defamatory, VPC has apparently even posted information that might be helpful to terrorists. From Barrett's statement:

Unfortunately, Mr. Diaz has recently published a 100+ page diatribe against .50 caliber weapons and the gun industry in general, and in this he has produced a very useful document for terrorist use which points out likely terrorist targets and even gives the actual locations of certain key “targets.” ...This new information which could benefit terrorists comes as no surprise as it follows VPC’s now-famous map showing where terrorist gunmen should stand to hit targets in Washington DC. Someone needs to ask Mr. Diaz: “Are you with us, or with the terrorists?”

The Violence Policy Center's open invitation to junk research, biased research, and academic dishonesty. Sort of like a Ku Klux Klan essay contest on racial equality, civil rights, and so on.

1. I wonder how much chance a pro-Second Amendment essay, i.e. one that argued that it referred to an individual right as opposed to the right of the National Guard (which didn't exist back then) to own firearms, would have of winning. I'd say about as much chance as a civil rights activist would have of winning that KKK essay contest.
2. VPC steers contestants toward biased resources, e.g. "The Violence Policy Center, Shot Full of Holes: Deconstructing John Ashcroft's Second Amendment (July 2001) (available at www.vpc.org)."
3. VPC can screen out politically-incorrect essays: "The VPC reserves the right to screen entries and to limit the number of papers submitted to the judges for final decision. The VPC also reserves the right not to award a prize, should there be no entry that, in the discretion of the judges, merits the award."
4. VPC distorts history in an inflammatory manner:  "Lastly, Hamilton was himself a victim of handgun violence. He was shot with a pistol by Aaron Burr in an 1804 duel." It is true that Burr killed Hamilton in a duel, but duelling was socially and even legally acceptable back then. Andrew Jackson became President after he killed a man in a duel (and was wounded in return); no one saw anything wrong with this. Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, also killed someone in a duel.
• While dueling may seem barbaric by today's standards, it actually played a role in controlling social violence.
• First, it prevented what we now call crimes of passion, or assaults and murders in hot blood. If one person was insulted or affronted by another, he could issue a challenge but no fight could occur until the next day. When the men (most duelists were male) cooled off or sobered up, they usually reconciled their differences nonviolently. The seconds also were expected to try to reconcile the principals.
• Second, if the principals insisted on fighting, they did so under rules and supervision that reduced the chance of a fatality or a permanent injury. If the duelists used pistols, they were allowed only one or two shots each (in some cases, they could reload if the first exchange of fire produced no results). A wound ended the affair. There also were instances in which the duelists fired into the air or ground (deloped), thus preserving their honor. A sword duel usually ended with the first wound.
• From an anthropological standpoint, many societies had dueling codes that substituted for the instinctive rules that most animals follow. As an example, dogs fight to show dominance but they never use their jaws' full power on each other. This instinct is weaker in humans, perhaps because our natural weapons (noting that the Greeks invented the fist only a few thousand years ago, and that Asian martial arts are even more recent) are puny and incapable of causing serious harm. We therefore never developed strong instinctive safeguards against killing each other with weapons, although revulsion at the idea of hitting or kicking a fallen opponent could well be an aspect of instinctive limitations on violence.
• Military historian John Keegan describes ritual warfare among primitive societies that limited the weapons that could be used and the damage that could be done.
• In West Side Story, the Jets and Sharks arranged a rumble (gang fight) with rules as to the weapons that could be brought. Pulling a knife, a weapon that might actually kill someone, appalled everyone present.
• Asian Indian Kshatriyas (the warrior caste) had rules for battle, as described in the Mahabharata. It was forbidden to strike an opponent who had surrendered or had fallen, and it was illegal to strike someone from behind. (Also, elephants could fight only elephants, chariots other chariots, and infantry other infantry.)
• Viking duels took place on a rug or carpet, and ended as soon as a combatant's blood fell on it.

Blagojevich, another critic of Barrett Firearms, has plenty of problems with his own character, ethics, and integrity. The Violence Policy Center praises his efforts to ban so-called "pocket rockets," or handguns less than 7.5 inches in length. The rationale is, "the gun industry has increased the lethality of its products by producing larger caliber, higher capacity, and more readily concealable handguns in order to boost sales in a stagnant market." Blagojevich's adoption of this position is prima facie evidence of his dishonesty, incompetence, or both.

• Concealability: Most states that issue carry concealed weapon (CCW) permits require that the firearm be concealed. CCW holders are cautioned not to expose their legally-carried firearms lest they alarm bystanders. Blagojevich either does not understand this or he is ignoring it deliberately.
• Larger Caliber: A common complaint about Negrotown Saturday Night Specials ("Negro" isn't the word the phrase's white supremacist inventors used) is that they lack stopping power. A .25 caliber bullet is unlikely to knock down a drug-crazed assailant, and this reduces the firearm's suitability for self-defense. (I won't say "eliminates" it because no criminal who is not hopped up on something wants to be shot with anything, even a .25.)
• On the other hand, a hit by even one .45 caliber bullet will put the most violent assailant on his back. Police firearm instructor Massaad Ayoob, author of In The Gravest Extreme, points out that this is more humane because it is usually necessary to shoot the assailant only once. If you have a .22, .25, .32, or even 9 millimeter, you may have to shoot the assailant several times (during which he may shoot or knife you!) and he will probably die. One round of .45 is unlikely to result in death.
• Blagojevich either does not understand (incompetent) or chooses to ignore (dishonest) this consideration as well.

They are far too numerous to list here, but "The Gun Control Movement's Dirty Laundry" has plenty of material about Handgun Control Inc., the Million Mom March, Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger (of Amirault controversy fame, or infamy), and others.