Yes, this is still an Assault Rifle

The pistol grip enables the user of the rifle to aim repeatedly and accurately in a small amount of time. A hunting rifle is designed for one shot. Hence, hunting rifles do not have pistol grips.

Josh Moore holds his totally not-an assault rifle

Shawn Moore, an NRA-certified firearms trainer and licensed hunter, recently stirred up some controversy when he gave his son, Josh, a .22 calibre rimfire rifle for his birthday and posted the photo on Facebook.

Someone who saw the photo called their local child welfare service office, who in turn sent an official to investigate, which left Shawn Moore ripping mad. Moore called an attorney to help set the record straight.

"Just because it has a sexy look to it does not make (the gun) an assault firearm," said Evan Nappen, Moore's attorney. "

We have heard this argument, relentlessly from the NRA and their ilk in the weeks after Newtown. How dare anybody attack a poor, defenseless rifle, based on how the thing looks?

Sorry, but a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip is an assault rifle, no matter how you look at it. Here's why.


This is the the 9mm High Point-carbine semi-automatic that Eric Harris used to commit his assault at Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999. It looks very nondescript. It doesn't have the same, military-style look as an AR-15, or Josh Moore's .22 Calibre rimfire. But it does have a pistol grip.

This is Dave Sanders, a teacher and softball coach at Columbine High School.

In the security video tape of the massacre, he is seen running up the stairs, towards the classrooms, rather than outside the school. After directing hundreds of students in the cafeteria to safety, Sanders ran towards the classrooms, most likely to help warn others.

Eric saw Dave Sanders running towards the classrooms. With one hand firmly on the rifle's pistol grip, Eric was was able to quickly aim and fire not once, not twice, but three times at Dave Sanders.

The first two shots hit Sanders in the back; the third ripped through his neck and exited his face. He stumbled into a nearby classroom, where students saw their teacher vomit his own blood and teeth. Terrified to venture into the hallway, the students admitted whatever first aid they could, while another wrote on a whiteboard: ONE BLEEDING TO DEATH In hopes to get professional medical help.

But the professional help never came--not in time. By the time medical help did arrive, it was too late. Dave Sanders was dead.

One bled to death. Because the rifle had a pistol grip, Harris was ready to accurately aim and fire repeatedly in a matter of seconds. Harris' sawed of shotgun, or Dylan Klebold's Tec-9 handgun, would have been unlikely to deliver three fatal wounds at long range.

It's not cosmetic. It's a feature. To a soldier in an army, a pistol grip has a benefit. Sadly, it has a benefit to a homicidal maniac as well.

So let's not give whiny critics of gun safety an inch in this regard. Not now, not ever. A pistol grip is not about how it looks, but what it does.

Video Games? Or real life?

Less than 24 hours after New York Daily News columnist Mike Lupica's bombshell report on Adam Lanza and his death kill "scorecard," Senators from both parties have called on stricter regulation of video games. West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller criticized the "obscene levels of violence" in video games, while Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley said "there are too many video games that celebrate the mass killing of innocent people--games the despite attempts at self-regulation find their way into the hands of children."

Okay, timeout here. Did either Senators Rockefeller or Grassley actually read the article? Lupica's story, available here, says that Lanza had compiled a 7 foot by four foot "scorecard" of actual mass murders and attempted mass murders. The scorecard contained 500 names, complete with the number of people killed, and the exact make and model of each weapon used.

"It had to have taken years," said Lupica's source. "It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research."

Two things here. First, Adam Lanza was crazed, immoral bastard. Second, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, it clearly wasn't the violence on video games that "inspired" Lanza to go on a shooting spree, it was the violence that was real, coupled with Lanza's own moral depravity.

I personally don't care much for most these so-called "shooter games," although I did play more than my fair share of Nintendo 64's GoldenEye back in 1998. It's not that I am a fan of these video games, it's that behavioral science does not validate claims that video games actually cause an increase in violent behavior. The opposite, is true in fact. And really, let's think about it. In Games like "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor," the shooter is an American soldier. How many of these "gamers" enlisted in the U.S. military after playing the game?

But that's not how certain people see the issue. We heard the same story about Eric Harris after Columbine. He played Doom. He also believed that humans should go extinct, and that he wanted to kill more people in a bombing of a public building than Timothy McVeigh, and that if he didn't follow through with his blaze of glory, he would have been a serial killer. All of this information was revealed in Eric Harris' home videos, made public in Dave Cullen's Columbine. 

So let's really examine the science here. In both cases, a truly disturbed individual* went on a shooting spree. In both cases, the perpetrators of said massacre were inspired by real-life violence. In both cases, the shooter(s) played video games. In both cases, the shooters had access to semi-automatic rifles that were legally purchased.

How sad that someone in a place of actual power and responsibility could see the evidence and arrive at the wrong conclusion.

What it means to be an American.

I hope you all had a Happy St. Patrick's Day. I know I did.

The Clancy Brothers with Tommy Makem and Sweaters.

While many of the faux Irish celebrant's were sleeping of their day-after parade hangovers, my wife and I got to enjoy the streets of Manhattan at our leisure. We studied some reference material at the New York Public Library before heading to lower Manhattan, where we enjoyed a St. Patrick's Day brunch at the Penny Farthing on 3rd Avenue and 12th Street. On our way home, we picked up some St. Joseph's Day cakes in Little Italy. Since my Mother is half-Irish and half-Italian, I have been able to enjoy the best of both worlds since birth.

I enjoy being who I am. But it's not just me.  Certainly, St. Patrick's day belongs to everyone. I had to let my wife know that she was Irish too, given how she looks so classy with her Emerald Green scarf. And that's just her. Again, it's all of us.

I remember when my father, who is not entirely Irish, told me the story of Ireland's orange, white and green. It was, he told me, a "food flag." The orange represented the corned beef; the green, cabbage. And the white represents the mashed potatoes!

This, by most accounts, comically false, but it was a true enough an explanation as for a 7 year-old to comprehend. It also may explain why my father won affection from his father-in-law. Irish folklore is essentially founded upon such metaphorical blarney. It's a reminder that are behavioral traits are not inborn. Cliché as it may be, it is true that while our differences make us unique, we are stronger bound by the similarities that bring us together. I reminded of this phenomena every day when I walk the streets of my neighborhood, which is populated by Hispanics, Koreans, African-Americans, and a few Belfasters. We live here because we don't care much for overpriced rent or hipsters. It's a good life.

I thought about this as I listened to the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem when my wife and I got home. I love their rendition of Bob Dylan's civil rights anthem, "the hour that the ship comes in."

And really that's what this country is all about. America: were a middle-class Jew can empathize with impoverished, segregated African-Americans and find mutual inspiration with Irish immigrants.

What a world.

What is stumping President Obama this time?

He studied hard. He earned his way into a very prestigious private high school. He has two Ivy league degrees, and yet, when it comes to a simple skill--basic math--he comes up short.

I'm talking about our fearless leader, Barack Obama. Okay, maybe he's not that fearless. He seems quite afraid about the deficit. And he is not alone. A Pew Research poll showed that 72 of Americans think reducing the deficit should be a top priority for 2013--a 19 percent increase from 2009. That is ironic considering that the deficit is lower now than it was four years ago. The projected deficit for 2013 is $845 billion, compared to $1.1 trillion last year.

We can only wonder what goes on up there.

That's right. The federal budget deficit is decreasing.The federal budget deficit did not increase under Obama as it had under Bush, and in fact, it is now getting smaller by the day.

Most Americans think the opposite is true: A recent Bloomberg poll showed that 62 percent of Americans thought the deficit is increasing, and another 28 percent thought the deficit is holding steady. Only 6 percent understood that the deficit is decreasing.

I can understand how many people could get such a basic question wrong. After all, one of the Cardinal Laws of American Politics is that the deficit is a matter of grave concern--if the guy you didn't vote occupies the White House. That's nearly half the country right there.

And most people aren't thoroughly examining the Congressional Budget Office. If someone is watching the news, they aren't going to see actual "facts" anymore. Instead, they are likely to see some pundit, politician, or the President himself say that Washington must change fiscal policy in order to reduce the deficit. One would think that politicians from both parties wouldn't claim a dire need to reduce the deficit if it were already going down. One would especially think that Barack Obama would be proud of reducing the deficit, and would mention it constantly in budget talks, instead of following the bogus narrative the deficit is increasing.

See! The numbers are going down! That's a decrease! Not an increase!

And yet he does, over and over and over again. I can understand why a political partisan like Mitch McConnell would deny reality, but why would Obama? Is there something wrong him?

I think perhaps there is. I think it is fair to say that someone a bestselling author who graduated from Columbia and Harvard can't be so wrong about something so simple. Clearly, Barack Obama has Attention to Deficit-Reduction Disorder.

That's why he can't see the graphs that show the deficit going down. That's why he can't release federal funds to hire more teachers, police officers, and firefighters. It's why he impulsively calls for raising the minimum age for Social Security and Medicare, even though such things are morally and financially unacceptable. It's not really him that makes him so blind to basic mathematics. It's not him, it's his Attention to Deficit-Reduction Disorder!

Let's help out the President in his time of need. The public phone number for the White House is (202) 456-1111. Call the operator, and tell him or her that the President must know the truth: the deficit is going down.