That's right, we said economist Steve Rattner. More on this anon.

Responding to the Aurora tragedy, here's what Mr. Rattner said: "I don't, for the life of me, understand what legitimate purpose anyone has for carrying an assault weapon... what legitimate purpose anyone has for carrying a semi-automatic pistol..."

We'll leave alone the declaration against assault weapons for now. We don't agree with that, either, but it will need to be addressed on a separate occasion.

We were, however, taken aback by Mr. Rattner's lack of understanding (that's how he puts it anyway) as to the legitimate purpose for a semi-automatic pistol. We find it hard to believe that, this far into the 21st century, people still feel the need to question that.

To that end, we offer the following response to Mr. Rattner and his ideological friends.

First, take a look at Steve Rattner. If there ever was a living, breathing example of an individual who needed a weapon for self-defense, it is Steve Rattner. He makes Paul Krugman look like Bruce Willis. And if he wasn't picked on in school from 3rd grade through 12th grade, we would be surprised.

Next, should it surprise anyone that an economist does not understand (his words, not ours) the necessity for semi-automatic pistols? With all due respect, this isn't his domain. We wouldn't expect him to understand it.

Would he be surprised if the average plumber doesn't fully understand Keynesian economics? We doubt it.

We also take exception to Mr. Rattner's statement, later in the video, in which he says: "You want good things to come from tragedies." That sounds an awful lot like Rahm Emmanuel's "never let a good crisis go to waste" statement, doesn't it?

Next, let's look at the philosophical argument, which is this: Who gives a crap that he doesn't understand why people need a semi-automatic weapon? Should the federal government legislate against every need that Steve Rattner doesn't understand?

But the simple fact of the matter is this: There are legitimate reasons for owning a semi-automatic pistol. Let's look at a few of them.

The first is shorter trigger pull. Granted, this is true only after the first double-action shot, but we think it's a foregone conclusion that it will increase accuracy.

Let's stop right here and once again restate the obvious: Does Mr. Rattner even know what a "double-action shot" is? He would probably have to Google it.

The next advantage is an increase in firepower. As Massad Ayoob notes in The Gun Digest Book Of Combat Handgunnery: "When any [law enforcement] department went from 6-shooters to the 18-shot Glock 17 in 9mm, they had 300 percent the firepower they had before." That increase in firepower is not at all insignificant in life-or-death situations.

Implied in the Ayoob quotation above is another advantage: additional capacity. In a high-stress shooting situation, coupled with the fear of losing one's own life and the physiological responses that accompany such a confrontation, it is possible that someone attempting to defend himself or herself with a handgun will miss a few shots. If that person has a 6-shooter, that's half the shots before a reload. With a semi-automatic pistol, that same person could afford to miss three shots and still have several rounds left over (how many rounds is dependent upon the make and model of the gun, of course).

And, in the event that our friend described above does run out of ammo with a semi-automatic pistol, reloading is generally faster than with a revolver. Yes, there are speedloaders for revolvers. But we find it intuitive that slamming a clip with 15-rounds into place is considerably cleaner and more efficient than using a speedloader to reload a revolver.

Semi-automatics are also, as a rule of thumb, a little easier to carry inconspicuously. They are "flatter" than revolvers.

In short, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to own a semi-automatic pistol.

Maybe Mr. Rattner should consult with law enforcement professionals, since virtually every law enforcement agency in the country issues semi-automatic pistols to on-duty officers.

And, maybe after they tell him why they do that, he'll finally "understand."

Have a look at Steve's statements below: