Last month, the Post-Gazette urged the Legislature to stay any efforts to address gun-related issues until a commission convened by Gov. Rendell could study gun violence and report back with its recommendations. We shouldn't have bothered. The panel held its fire.

Last week the 26-member Commission to Address Gun Violence came back with its report, which has some good suggestions but is ultimately disappointing, especially in light of the urgent need for action.

The shame of this is that the seriousness of the problem had moved Gov. Rendell to call for the commission in the first place. A surge of gun violence was taking place, he said, and too many of Pennsylvania's children were being killed. He made particular mention of the 16-year-old student shot and killed in March as he sat outside Carrick High School.

The commission confirmed that homicides involving firearms had increased -- they were up 11 percent statewide between 1999 and 2004. Moreover, a significant increase in firearms violations had occurred among 16- and 17-year-olds -- adjudications for youths aged 16 were up 30 percent between 2001 and 2003, and up 25 percent for the 17-year-olds over the same period.

In response to these alarming trends, the panel's chairman, Walter M. Phillips Jr., explained in a press release issued by the Governor's Office: "The commission is recommending a more holistic approach to a problem that for too long has been addressed in a piecemeal fashion."

Holistic it is, with all the soft-edged impact the word suggests.

What it's not is realistic, in at least addressing Gov. Rendell's original goal of finding tangible solutions to prevent the illegal possession of guns. In our view, the recommendations seem to be more about reacting after the fact, not preventing problems before they happen.

A number of the recommendations might be termed bureaucratic improvements. They include promoting and funding programs that have proved effective in targeting or prosecuting violent felons, sharing information and doing a better job of educating the public about gun violence.

Other recommendations are a bit more to the point -- such as prohibiting serious drug trafficking and repeat violent offenders from possessing firearms, adding offenses to the list of those disqualifying a person from possessing a gun, providing a mandatory minimum of five years imprisonment for selling a gun to someone not allowed to have one.

These are all good but they are also easy. When it came to the hard targets, the ones that had to be hit to make a real impact, the panel couldn't bring itself to pull the trigger.

Why can't local municipalities pass their own enhanced firearms measures by referendum? Why shouldn't a person be limited to buying one handgun a month, something that Gov. Rendell has supported in the past? (An exception could be made for collectors.)

According to The Associated Press, Mr. Phillips said that a majority of the commission would have approved these proposals but votes were not taken on the advice of a subcommittee that included legislators.

What a missed opportunity! What a pity that good proposals must die because there is no stomach to handle a political hot potato that might offend the usual suspects, particularly the National Rifle Association. Meanwhile, the victims of gun violence are left with nothing more than the pages of an inadequate report to stanch their bleeding.