Much to the credit of his newspaper and his profession, the Philadelphia Inquirer's Robert Moran takes a hard look at the statistics behind Philadelphia's shooting victims, who turn out to be not quite as innocent as they're often portrayed. A full 70% have criminal records:

Coleman was one of Philadelphia's 380 homicide victims last year, when the rate of killing spiked. Coleman's death also reflects another trend that is sometimes overlooked while the city grapples with the jump in homicides: Increasing numbers of victims had criminal pasts.

More than 70 percent of those killed last year had been arrested at least once, according to police statistics, and some were hard-core street thugs. Two years earlier, the figure was 64 percent.

From Dec. 1 through Jan. 8, 12 of 46 victims - 26 percent - had 10 arrests or more, Homicide Capt. Michael Costello said. One had 23 arrests, and another had 31.

"The drug culture and the gun culture are just so prevalent, and the people who play in that culture are either the victims or shooters," said Chief Inspector Joseph Fox, head of detectives.

Of course, there were people with no criminal history who were killed in robberies, through domestic abuse, as bystanders in shootings, and in petty disputes.

The majority of the killings, however, were "bad guys on bad guys," Fox said.

But I don't think it helps society to blame the guns they use (and advocate disarming law abiding people), especially considering the fact that any armed criminal is by his nature already violating countless gun laws. It might legitimately be asked what convicted criminals are doing running around with guns they're prohibited from having, but blaming the guns makes about as much sense as blaming stolen property for having been there to steal. (Many of the guns they use, of course, are stolen from law abiding citizens.)

But people who hate guns just hate guns. I think this hatred makes them see law abiding gun owners as a bigger stumbling block than armed criminals. If you believe passionately that all guns should be in the hands of either criminals or police, then naturally you'll tend to see all gun owners as criminals, or dangerously deluded psychos. Criminals with guns are a lesser threat, because it is universally acknowledged that they are criminals. It has something to do with the regulatory mindset, and maybe human nature. People who hate marijuana tend to regard legal users smoking dope in an Amsterdam cafe as far "worse" than furtive street users living in fear of stiff mandatory sentences. Seen this way, even a drug dealer is "better" because he is an acknowledged criminal. Thus, he's less of a moral threat. Anything which is done legally is a much direr threat to the moral authority of those who want it prohibited.

This is true even if the laws are not enforced, or are unenforceable. It never ceased to amaze me how supporters of "sodomy" laws often enjoyed pointing out that the laws were "rarely or never enforced" -- as if this was an argument in favor of keeping them on the books!

But the workings of the regulatory human mind are baffling. It's one of the reasons I so hate politics.

Sometimes I hate politics so much that I wish it could be made illegal. But it would take politics to get rid of politics, which is no solution at all. (As Mao said, "in order to get rid of the gun, it is necessary to take up the gun.")

But Philadelphia police authorities are not about to cite Mao. Instead (to return to Chief Inspector Joseph Fox's quote above), they blame the "gun culture."

I'd like to know just what is meant by the term "gun culture"? Inspector Fox straps on his holster every morning, and in all probability he is armed when he's at home. What is culture? Can a living with a particular object be said to be a cultural phenomenon? I own cars; am I part of the "car culture"? Does my ownership of a dog make me a member of the "dog culture"? Or, more particularly in the case of Coco, part of the "pit bull culture"? Is what I might do in my alleged bedroom also part of a "culture"?

I hate to sound like a nitpicker, but these terms are thrown around willy-nilly without definition, and then when I look for explanations I can't find them. So, just for today, I'll stick with "gun culture."

According to author John Ross (who has written a book on the subject), "gun culture" consists of those who own guns and practice shooting skills -- excluding police:

The gun culture is comprised of those people for whom shooting skills hold great importance. People in the gun culture do not necessarily own a lot of guns, however, they shoot whatever guns they do own quite a bit. They are voracious consumers of ammunition because they are serious about improving and maintaining their skills, just as serious musicians practice daily, and serious readers spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars and many hours each year on books.

An estimated 100 million people in this country own at least one gun, but these are not all members of the gun culture. (Please note that though a few police officers are members of the gun culture, most are not. This should not surprise anyone who thinks about it for a few moments. Police have many responsibilities, but firing a gun in the line of duty is something many never need to do during decades of service.)

In my first novel Unintended Consequences, I described the term gun culture in this way, and it was a central part of the story. Since then, I have seen the term used ever more frequently in the mainstream media, usually to describe the same group of people that I am. I am very heartened by this.

Yet what is the logical connection between law abiding gun owners and armed criminals? Inspector Fox does not spell this out, but others (notably Michael Moore) have. Whether he's making a communitarian, Michael Moore-style argument or whether he's saying that armed criminals constitute the "gun culture," I'm not sure. There's no way to know.

That's the magic of coded language. The same term can mean different things to different people.

But the argument can be made that Inspector Fox should watch his language. According to the United Nations types (and Amnesty International), in places like Haiti the term "gun culture" would include criminals, the law abiding, and even the police.

Haiti is awash with small arms which are fuelling violence and human rights abuses and threaten planned elections, according to Amnesty International.

The group says armed criminal gangs and police officers alike are able to act with impunity towards civilians.

It urges the US-appointed interim government and UN peacekeepers to carry out complete disarmament.

Do they live in a "gun culture" all their own?

(I don't know, and I wish I could do a better job of interpreting the news.)