Gov. Rendell said it in an impassioned rant last week, during which he labeled pro-gun lawmakers as "brainwashed or threatened into submission" by interests such as the National Rifle Association.

This was the same day Rendell took the unusual step of appearing before a legislative committee to plead for passage of new laws aimed at reducing handgun violence, and suggested that lawmakers get "some backbone."

The committee - controlled by Rendell's fellow Democrats - promptly ignored him and voted against two measures, while tabling a third.

Then the sponsor of the tabled bill (which requires reporting lost or stolen handguns to police), Philly Democratic Rep. Jewell Williams, called pro-gun colleagues "yahoos . . . the old boys with the boots and the guns."

A sharp-eyed reader e-mailed me saying that Williams' comment "sounds a lot like code for whitey or cracker to me."

I responded: "and you sound like a good code-cracker to me."

The point of pointing out remarks by Rendell and Williams is this: If one truly seeks compromise on a controversial issue, is it a sound tactic to suggest that opponents are stupid, spineless or racist?

It no doubt delights the political base of gun-control supporters to hear the other side so tagged. But it also raises the question of whether the intent here is to pander or produce.

But back to the truth:

Nobody tells it.

Do state gun laws under discussion restrict (or even inconvenience) legitimate gun-owners? No.

The truth is that the laws apply only to handguns, exist in other states and don't violate anyone's rights.

Would these state laws stem gun violence? No.

The truth is that the violence is a product of social decay, fatherless families, poverty, joblessness, a drug culture grown beyond reason and decades of political decisions by both parties to prioritize areas other than those aimed at easing crime.

Such decisions - tax dollars for pro sports stadiums instead of more police and proven social programs, huge spending on foreign aid and foreign wars while American cities such as Philly sport poverty rates of 25 percent - have consequences.

But rather than admit to misplaced priorities and/or seek to alter them, our elected leaders divert our attention with old proposals and selective statistics.

For example: Philly should write its own gun laws because it makes sense that the city tend to itself. Sounds reasonable.

Rarely noted: Washington, D.C., has had gun laws since 1976.

It is illegal to have a handgun there. In '76, the district's homicide rate was 26.8 per 100,000 residents. Today it's 29.1 per 100,000 - lowest since 1985.

(Philly's rate is 27.7; Pennsylvania's is 5.9.)

OK, well, then we should restrict handgun sales to one per month to reduce guns on the street. Seems to make sense.

Rarely noted: Two of the three states with such a law (California and Maryland) have homicide rates higher than Pennsylvania's, 6.8 and 9.7, respectively; the third (Virginia) has a homicide rate reflecting national rates with ups and downs over the last decade (Virginia's rate is 5.2, the national rate is 5.7); and the first one-gun-a-month law, South Carolina's in 1975, was repealed three years ago.

I don't doubt Rendell's "we're-not-going-away" passion on this issue; I just wonder where it was when he was a statewide candidate in '02 or last year.

I don't oppose control efforts, especially reporting lost/stolen handguns, under the argument that any action, even symbolic, has merit.

But Philly's problem, bad as it is (362 dead so far this year) isn't, people tend to forget, as bad as it was in '93 (439) or '95 (432) or '96 (420) when you-know-who was mayor.

So, what should be done now?

Well, for starters, how about everybody tells the truth?

Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.

For recent columns, go to

http://go.philly.com/baer.