Analysis of liability related to handguns is particularly difficult when considering situations in which the guns are being used lawfully and cause injury. However, the application of economic concepts shows that the rule of strict liability is superior to a negligence standard in maximizing social welfare in certain types of activities, including abnormally dangerous ones. Handgun manufacture and distribution clearly meet the criteria for the common law doctrine of abnormally dangerous activities, because a handgun is a product designed to inflict injury. Classifying the manufacture and distribution of handguns as an abnormally dangerous activity would extend past doctrine, making the production of a consumer product the basis for liability. This classification would rest on the six factors listed in the 'Second Restatement of Torts' in 1977: (1) the probability of harm, (2) the magnitude of harm, (3) the ineffectiveness of due care, (4) uncommon usage, (5) inappropriateness of the location of the activity, and (6) the activity's value to the community. However, the use of these criteria would not result in liability for manufacturers of other risky products like other firearms, knives, alcohol, automobiles, and tobacco. Only handguns would meet these criteria, and courts should be willing to use established tort principles in decisions about them. 157 footnotes.