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.

The phony center on gun control

One thing that irks me about the American press is that it invariably likes to present all political news under one narrative: two opposing views that can never be reconciled. If anybody has a strong opinion, they are drowned out of the national debate, save only for those heroic journalists who opine about the "center."

Gun owner Gary Nutt of Kentucky proudly displays the only bullet he needs.

There are several problems with this news motif, but the most striking is that the "centrist viewpoint" put on a pedestal by the news punditocracy is either left or right, and right or wrong. Paul Krugman, for example, has all but devoted his bi-weekly New York Times column to debunking the "centrist" leanings of advocates for deficit reduction.

But that's another story. This weekend, I couldn't help but notice this New York Times story about a Waco, Texas couple who owns guns but doesn't much care for them.

"I'd love to see all guns destroyed," said Michael Kundu. "But I'm not giving mine up first."

The article goes on to explain the Kundu's ambivalence about guns, living in Waco (who wouldn't be afraid their neighbors?) and, here is the kicker: a call to moderation!

"It is these voices of ambivalence," writes Times reporter Susan Saulny, "that policy makers are say are likely to be drowned out."

Guns still poll better than Marco Rubio

To be fair, on the surface, "gun control" appears to be a contentious issue. Ask somebody if he or she believes in gun control, and there is a 50 percent chance that the response will be yes, and a 50 percent chance that the response will be no.

Ah, but one follow up question yields that most Americans do support specific measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and limit the deadly power that guns can inflict on innocent people, to "control" guns, if you will. 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks on gun purchases, 65 percent support a ban on high capacity magazines, and 55 percent support a comprehensive assault weapons ban.

90. 65. 55. These are all clear majorities. A presidential candidate hasn't received a popular vote total of 55 percent since Ronald Reagan in 1984. I wonder what he had to say about gun control?

"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense," said Reagan. "But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."

I'm sure if Ronnie were still alive today, he would have much more to say on the subject, since he was, you know, shot. Things like that tend to put someone not to the "center" of some abstract debate, but in the column of those who believe in statistically proven measures to reduce gun violence. How could anybody fancy themselves a news "reporter" on the subject gun control and overlook Gabby Giffords?

And that's the bottom line. The voices of gun owners who call for restrictions on who can own a gun, and what guns should be available to the general public, are not "extremists." These are generally sensible people. Perhaps one reason why Ms. Saulny thought it would be hard to find gun owners who support these restrictions is because none other than the New York Times reported that gun ownership is in the throes of a steep, steady decline for the last four decades.

Sounds like a new rule from Bill Maher: In order to report the news, one must read it first.

The Kevin Miner Gun Challenge!

In 1980, San Diego Padres shortstop Ozzie Smith set the all-time assists record for a shortstop at 621, and won the first of 13 consecutive Gold Glove Awards.

He also hit .230, with zero home runs and .313 On Base Percentage. The following baseball season, Smith's appearance at the plate was even more dismal, logging a .222 batting average and zero home runs, with an on base percentage of .294.  To put it in non-baseball terms: pathetic. Due to animosity between Ozzie Smith's agent, Ed Gottlieb, and the San Diego Padres management, Smith found himself a St. Louis Cardinal at the start of the 1982 season.

I guarantee you nobody is taking this guy's gun away!!

At spring training, Cardinal manager Whitey Herzog saw Smith's potential as a hitter and offered the young player a deal.

"Every time you hit a fly ball," said Herzog to Smith, "you owe me a buck. Every time you hit a ground ball, I owe you a buck."

The plan worked beautifully. Smith accepted the deal, stopped trying to hit home runs, and earned $300 over the course of the 1982 season. His batting average improved to respectability, and Smith finished his career with a respectable 2,460 hits. As a Padre, Ozzie Smith's batting average was a lowly .231 As a Cardinal, Smith hit .272.

I offer a similar proposal to any law-abiding gun owner. For every day that a government official doesn't take your gun away, you owe me a buck. For every day that a government official does take your gun away, I will give you $10,000. Per gun. And yes, I am completely serious.

Why do I make this offer? Because quite frankly, less than three months after 20 mothers and fathers had their children taken away from them by a madman, a predictable group of sourpusses have sulked and complained that they are the real victims here.

Spare me. That is just wrong for so many reasons. You, a victim? Why? Because in the future, a 17 year-old with a documented history of mental illness and a criminal record might not be allowed to purchase a Tec-9, a 9 mm High Point Carbine Rifle, and two shotguns at a gun show? It's happened before. The buyer's name was Eric Harris.

So happy I could flip!

We have automotive safety laws in the country. To obtain a car, one must first take lessons from a certified instructor, pass a test, and obtain a licence. After buying a car, one must register the car and pay insurance on it, because even though cars can be useful, these cars can also be quite dangerous if not handled properly. In fact, cars themselves must meet certain safety standards from the manufacturer if they are to be sold to the general public.

Substitute the word "car" with "gun," and guess what? You're not a "victim." No one is going to take your car away and leave you defenseless against a "bad guy with a car." You will survive. You will not be, nor are you now, a victim.

But people who get shot and killed are victims. Sometimes these victims had a gun, sometimes they didn't. But the perpetrator had a gun that, all too often, was legally purchased. So take me up on this challenge. Eventually, you will learn that nobody is out to "take your gun away."

Or better yet, stop complaining.