In the days following the shocking, repulsive, execution-style murder of Philadelphia police officer Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, there has been a renewed focus on the power of the NRA specifically and the gun lobby generally. (For example, see Jill Porter's column today, or Mike Nutter's comments from Monday.)

While I welcome that scrutiny, and think it is common-sense that we keep assault-weapons off the street, I can't help but think that an all-out effort to go after the assault-weapons ban- rather than, for example- handguns- is a really misguided effort.

First, let's think about the murder of Sgt. Liczbinski, who was callously killed, right after telling onlookers to tell his family he loved them. If the alleged killers are insane enough to simply execute a cop, would they be less likely to do so with a shotgun? With a high-caliber handgun? In other words, if we went back in time, and put in a strict assault weapons ban, would he be alive? I doubt it.

Second, how many of the 400 or so people killed on our streets yesterday were slain by people using assault weapons? I would guess it is a distinct minority. How many were killed by handguns?

My point is- when the overwhelming majority of those murdered are done so with handguns, why aren't we focusing there?

The assault weapons ban was passed in 1994 amid widespread panic from a spate of mass shootings, which continued with shootings in places like Columbine high school in 1999. To put this in context, in Columbine, 13 people were killed, 12 of them kids. In Philly last year, 68 high-school age (15-19) kids were killed. In other words, we have a Columbine level massacre of our children every 9 weeks (not to mention the amount of young men slightly older who are killed). How many of them would be saved by renewing the assault weapons ban?

Again, I am all for taking on the gun lobby, and think the assault weapons ban is common-sense. But, if it is handguns that are felling people in Philadelphia- including most police officers that are killed- why does one especially repulsive killing shift that focus? If you tell me that this is the first volley, OK. But, if like in 1994, this is basically the end of possible successes, then why are we focusing here?

There's been a lot of adulation thrown at the new mayor, but this is really awesome.

Mayor Nutter yesterday said he would enforce new city gun-control laws even without state authorization to do so - setting up a possible legal and political showdown between the state and the new mayor.

State preemption of our city's ability to deal with its own problems is itself a big problem. Until Michael Nutter just stood up and said enough, the loudest voice was probably our own Dan UA. Dan has called out the state's messing with: our smoking ban, our right to control our own zoning, our progressive anti-predatory lending bill (more than once), our campaign finance bill, and the effect of all this preemption on the casino fight. Oh yeah, and guns.

PS there's totally more but I got tired of hyperlinking.

Anyway, of all this state hand-tying, the refusal to let us deal with our gun problem is compounded by the fact that the state won't deal with it either. The laws we are talking about here are some of the same ones that Rendell begged (with 'clenched teeth' and 'pounding the lectern') the legislature to pass:

The bills would force owners to immediately report stolen guns; set monthly limits for firearms purchases; require vendors to report ammunition sales; and prohibit gun sales to anyone who is the subject of an order of protection.

They wouldn't.

So this is how it is going to work:

At the first regular meeting of the new City Council yesterday, Council members Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller introduced the same package of gun-control measures that languished last year while the state legislature refused to authorize them.

But these bills have a new wrinkle - they don't call for state-enabling legislation. The previous bills were conditional on companion state laws in recognition of a 1996 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said cities could not enforce their own gun laws.

But Nutter, Clarke and Miller, frustrated by the repeated failure of gun-control measures in the legislature, now appear ready to do just that.

"If these bills pass and if I sign them, then I expect to enforce them," Nutter said. "If you believe we can have a safer city by putting these measures in place, I think as good public servants we are compelled to take some type of action in the face of no relief coming from anywhere else."

And now that we have a newly Democratic state supreme court (thanks to the election efforts of a lot of you!):

[Temple law professor and totally awesome lawyer David] Kairys said the city's action could set up a test of a new Supreme Court, now under Chief Justice Ronald Castille, the former Philadelphia district attorney who promised to depoliticize the court.

"If there's really going to be a new day in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, this would be a fine place to start," Kairys said.

Now I know that this can't stop the shootings and all the bloodletting on its own. And there has been some troubling evidence that the new day might have shadows of the old (see, e.g., Clarena Tolson).

But this, no question this is a huge symbolic leap into a new day. And, as Dan has, you know, detailed, it has implications for all sorts of progressive law-making.

Watching the news last night, I saw that the shooting in Omaha received only two minutes of coverage on the CBS Evening News. Am I the only one concerned that we have gotten to the point that a shooting spree has to have a death toll in the double digits to warrant major attention or outrage?

This is an issue of great interest and importance to Philadelphia. Over the past year, we have had over 300 murders. Yet what do we do...nothing.

What does our government do...nothing.

Last week, Washington Redskins Free Safety Sean Taylor was shot and killed at his home outside of DC. He was shot in the leg, but bled to death because the bullet went through an artery. Taylor's teammates played through the grief on Sunday.

Cornerback Shawn Springs said he choked up as he dressed for the game next to Taylor's unmanned locker. Cornerback Fred Smoot said he cried the first few times Buffalo had the ball. The Redskins' pep band began the day with a sad, swing-low song called "Going Home."

Redskins wide receiver Santana Moss - who played for the University of Miami, same as his close friend Taylor - held up his hands in a new three-fingered salute to his late teammate's jersey number, using his index and middle fingers to form a "2" and his little finger to form the "1" after each of his five catches, often looking toward the sky.