I don’t think stricter regulations on firearms are the answer to school shootings and other gun violence that ends in death.

That said, I do think regulations, combined with a bunch of other measures, may be the only chance we have to gain some control over what has become a huge problem.

It’s true that a person intent upon getting a gun and killing someone with it is likely to accomplish the task, at least occasionally. But perhaps if guns were a bit harder to get, at least some people with intent would give up on the idea. That may be particularly true of people thinking about suicide.

Oregon, for all its Portlandia reputation, seems to be a sort of haven for gun owners and for gun violence. The picture isn’t pretty:

True, a smaller percentage of Oregonians is murdered with guns than is the case nationally, 13.6 per 100,000 population here between 2010 and 2015, compared to 34.3 per 100,000 nationally.

Unfortunately, we more than make up for that lack when it comes to suicide. Just over 82 percent of suicides in the state are accomplished with guns, compared to 62 percent nationally.

Moreover, Oregon’s suicide rate is above the national average, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

But gun control alone won’t fix the problem, and I think we should look at all our options seriously.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, needs serious work, for example. States are not required to forward information to it; they should be. Background checks are not required for private-party sales, in person or over the internet.

Such transactions account for as much as 40 percent of gun sales in this country, and checks should be required.

Too, would-be purchasers may buy their guns if a background check is not completed within three business days. Serious people should ask if that is long enough.

They should also ask about the definition of mental illness that means a would-be purchaser is denied a gun. Is it too strict? Some believe it is not, while others say it is far too limiting and should be reworked.

John Donohue, a Stanford law professor, argues that Americans were safer before a federal ban on assault weapons was repealed in 2004, though the evidence is mixed. And, in fact, assault weapons were used in only about 2 percent of crimes before the ban.

Donohue and others argue that one problem with the numbers is the continuing availability of high-capacity magazines.

Then, there is the clear need for improved mental health services and access to them in this country. Too many shooters — Nikolas Cruz in Florida, Aaron Alexis at the Washington Naval Yard, Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, among others — commit their crimes well after their problems were recognized.

As for the notion that denying a person younger than 21 the right to purchase a long guy somehow robs him or her of a constitutional right, I don’t buy it — if Congress or the states pass laws making it illegal. We deny kids that age the right to drink legally, and we don’t let 14-year-olds drive cars.

As for the Constitution, there are a variety of limits on amendments in the Bill of Rights, from the right to free speech (you can’t incite people to do something that will hurt someone, and you have no constitutional right to pornography, for example) to the right of privacy (not always) to the right to practice your religion as you wish (but not when you want to impose your religious beliefs on the lives of others).

No, gun control is not the only answer to this country’s gun violence problems. But perhaps some limits, coupled with better background checks, might at least slow down the problem.

— Janet Stevens is deputy editor of The Bulletin. Contact 541-617-7821, jstevens@bendbulletin.com