If any other product killed 22,000 people annually, including 365 children under age 15 killed accidentally by the product, it would surely be banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Handguns are allowed to thrive in the public marketplace because of the exaggerated utility attached to handguns in the American culture. The utility of the handgun is twofold: in hunting and target shooting, as well as in self-protection. The handgun, however, has an emotional significance to many Americans that goes beyond its utility. To be without a handgun for some would create an emotional emptiness or intolerable fear of vulnerability. The utility of handguns is outweighed by the risk they pose to society, particularly given the availability of a substitute product that serves the same needs as a handgun, i.e., a long gun. The availability of rifles and shotguns substantially dilutes the utility of handguns; long guns have almost the same utility and present less risk, because they are not easily concealed. An alternative to a legal ban on handgun manufacture is the imposition of strict liability upon handgun manufacturers. Strict liability would mean that, like all other manufacturers of unreasonably dangerous products, gun manufacturers would bear the cost of injuries their products cause. The result would be that the price of handguns would rise to reflect their true cost to society. Once that price is reached, the free market would determine whether the product is worth that cost to society.