We recently witnessed, yet again, another case of firearm violence with the shooting deaths of five people on the Northern Illinois University campus. One of the most surprising things in the aftermath was an almost complete lack of discussion on the topic of gun control. The conversation that did occur centered mostly on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. Have we as a country given up on the notion of limiting access to firearms for the general population?

Interestingly, in the Northern Illinois killings, even though the shooter had a shotgun, most of the shots were fired by the handguns he carried. He apparently fired only six of 54 shots from the shotgun. This makes tragic sense of course. Handguns are designed almost exclusively for the purpose of shooting people and they work well. More than 80 percent of all firearm-related homicides involve handguns. Further, over 85 percent of all firearm-related crimes involve handguns. In addition, about 45 percent of all suicides are with handguns. Over a third of all police officers who die in the line of duty each year are shot, mostly by handguns. Clearly, handguns are a problem, yet we do little about them.

The arguments against handgun control are familiar, old and tired: we need handguns to protect ourselves from bad people, whether criminals or invaders; the constitution guarantees our right to have them; arming the population lowers the crime rate. However, statistically, there is no validity to any of these and the constitution does not ensure people access to handguns. The rare occasions when handguns actually do protect safety - and this seldom happens - are far outweighed by deaths caused by them.

Be clear: It isn't all firearms that need control. It's primarily handguns. A large segment of our population enjoys hunting as a sport and should be allowed to continue. But, most hunting is done with rifles and shotguns, not handguns. Unfortunately, we seem to be unable to separate an acceptable purpose for firearm ownership - recreation - from an unacceptable one - killing people.

It isn't that we are a particularly violent society. Our violent crime rate is about average for industrialized nations. Even as bad as TV and movies are about encouraging violence, we're still not too far from the rest of the world. Where we differ is how we do our violence. David Hemenway, of Harvard University's Injury Control Research Center says, "In general, guns don't induce people to commit crimes. What guns do is make crimes lethal." It's an excellent point. A hold-up with a knife is a difficult business (even though it is frequently tried) and when confronted, the perpetrator frequently runs off. Not so gunmen. All too often, when they encounter resistance in a robbery, they shoot.

Interpersonal conflicts are much the same way. When disagreements get heated and violent, the violence frequently escalates to firearms and someone gets shot. Without the gun, there may be a fistfight but those are usually not as deadly. Do you remember when handguns were called "Saturday Night Specials?" It was a reference to guns used when domestic disputes resulted in violence. Tempers flared and the result was a shooting. But, no gun, no shooting. And have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing?

So what can we do? One approach would be to allow the manufacture and sale of handguns only to law enforcement agencies. That would not infringe upon the right to "keep and bear arms" but the effect would certainly be to eventually curtail the availability of handguns. Or, how about tightly controlling the manufacture and distribution of ammunition? Both of these suggestions would control the supply of handguns and not directly restrict individual freedoms but would certainly have an impact.

Another approach would be to heavily tax either handguns, ammunition or both. Or a registration of $1,000 per year also might dissuade more than a few from purchasing handguns.

It's clear any attempt to directly limit handgun ownership will cause huge constitutional battles but as suggested, there are other ways to accomplish the objective of limiting availability. There is no single magic solution to the handgun problem. Nonetheless, to continue to ignore the enormous human cost accompanying widespread distribution is an embarrassment. We should be a better society than that.