Extreme anti-gun bias by Philadelphia politicians and media is attracting national attention lately, with an ABC News special echoing and promoting culture war stereotypes of the sort I've been arguing against for years.

I'll start with the Philadelphia Inquirer. The logic is hard to follow, but the Inquirer recently editorialized that gun control would have helped stop police from firing 85 shots into a man who'd been waving a gun at them:

Make no mistake, there are situations in which police have no choice but to shoot. In Miller's case, police said he pointed a loaded gun at officers and would not drop it when ordered. But the number of shots went far beyond what was necessary to deal with the threat. Something went awry.

Understand that officers staring down a weapon have to make split-second decisions whether to fire. They know that all too often in such situations, it's officers who are hurt.

That's why good training that ingrains smart procedures is so key. Other cities' police departments - New York's, in particular - have done a better job recently of training police in tactics that minimize the need for deadly force in difficult situations.

Harrisburg lawmakers could help city police by providing sound gun control. With city streets awash in illegal guns, it's no wonder officers frequently face potentially lethal situations.

Yes, that's exactly what the argument is. From another Inquirer editorial:

It's likely that the firearms used in these killings were illegally obtained by the shooters.

The odds of that being so are heightened because of the lack of political will in Washington and Harrisburg to displease gun-rights absolutists.

Yes, the people who think this way really believe that laws will stop shootings in Philadelphia.

NRA-beholden legislators stand in the way of actual progress. Instead of passing laws (which are the only solution that can work here), they only promise commissions and more talk. (Emphasis added.)

Monica Yant Kinney expressed a typical sentiment:

Whenever I write about Philadelphia's homicide crisis, I hear from suburban readers who think it's a waste of space.

Poor black people killing poor black people, thugs shooting thugs - why should we cry?

With alarming regularity, folks living outside the city suggest they'd rather ignore the horrors inside it.

"Homicide is a loaded topic. It's not pretty. It's not pleasant."

And whether you're living comfortably in the suburbs or fighting to stay alive in the city, it's too ugly to ignore anymore.

This Tony Auth cartoon (which I previously blogged about) is typical:

It would be bad enough if this bad logic and culture war stereotyping were limited to local politicians and newspapers, but now that I see it's been ramped up on national television, I worry that the fears I've expressed (about a national gun control movement deliberately targeting cities) are confirmed.

This past Sunday (July 8), ABC's World News Sunday ran an extremely biased program about Philadelphia gun control. Invoking all the culture war stereotypes, Philadelphia is portrayed as a "victim" of the rural redneck culture that rules the rest of the state, and will not allow Philadelphia to enact "its own laws."

During a plug for the story before a commercial break, anchor Dan Harris portrayed Philadelphia as a "desperate" city that was "in the cross-hairs" of the gun control debate. Harris: "A city desperate to stop the murders finds itself in the cross-hairs of a national debate on gun control."

Harris introduced the story by relaying the contention of Philadelphia gun control proponents that its city has a higher murder rate because the city must abide by gun laws set by a state government that is "dominated by rural lawmakers." Harris: "Philadelphia has to follow gun laws set by the state government, which is dominated by rural lawmakers. And city officials say that is why they have the highest murder rate of the nation's big cities -- 213 this year and counting."

Kerley began his report by recounting the story of a five-year-old girl who was shot to death while riding in a car. Kerley then suggested that the reason New York City has a lower murder rate than Philadelphia is because it has stricter gun laws than Philadelphia. Kerley: "Philadelphia has more murders than New York, with six times the population. But unlike New York, Philadelphia cannot pass its own gun laws."

The ABC correspondent then turned to one of the "frustrated city officials" who says they will "sue their own state government." City Councilman Darrell Clarke: "I can no longer continue to sit here and allow the level of violence to continue unabated simply because people don't feel it is appropriate to do what I believe is their mandatory duty."

This would almost be comical if it wasn't for the fact that we're talking about the Second Amendment here. (You know, it's part of that Bill of Rights thingie?)

I'm also fascinated by the dichotomy between urban and rural. From the transcript of the ABC docudrama:

Where you stand on this issue may depend on where you live. Urban Americans tend to favor strict gun laws. Rural Americans do not. But in one big city, they don't get to choose. Philadelphia has to follow gun laws set by the state government, which is dominated by rural lawmakers. And city officials say that is why they have the highest murder rate of the nation's big cities -- 213 this year and counting.

I may be a total aberration, but if the truth were told, I'm not urban, nor am I rural. I live in the suburbs. And not only don't I have a handlebar moustache, I don't have pistols with telescopic sights! (I usually associate the latter with competition shooting at ranges, not drive by shootings, but I guess ABC was just trying to be as inclusive as possible.)

What's missing from the chart and from the discussion is that Philadelphia's murder rate, while appallingly high, is nothing new. The chart accurately reflects this year's total so far. Last year's homicide total was 406 -- not much different from what was seen in the 1990s:

Murders peaked at 503 in 1990 for a rate of 31.5 per 100,000, and they averaged around 400 a year for most of the nineties. In 2002 the murder count hit a low of 288, but by 2006 the annual total had surged to 406.

I agree with Jeff Soyer that the solution is not more laws, but better law enforcement:

most of this violence is the result of street gangs, drug gangs, et al. Frankly, I wouldn't worry about the 28,000 legally licensed citizens concealed-carrying. I'd be more concerned about the thousands of criminals who haven't bothered (and never will) obtaining a permit. They're the ones commiting mayhem.

Bust-up the mutant gangs, throw them in jail, and watch the violence decrease. Don't start leaving the haplass honest folk defenseless.

I don't like the idea of two Americas, one urban, one rural, but some people need it.