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?

Over the past two weeks, I have been trying to square my own personal views on gun possession--both viscerally and legally--with the glut of illegal handguns that seem to be committing the majority of violence in this City. While I believe firmly believe in the Second Ammendment, my conclusion has largely been that we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to gun violence for fear of retribution from the NRA. I am a gunowner, but I believe a lot of what the NRA says to be outright advocacy for gun manufacturers, and for that reason, am not a member.

This is why I thought taxation of handguns, similar to cigarettes was such a good idea. However, I understand that the majority of illegal sales would not be affected. Enter today's Daily News opinion section.