No principles in the firearms policies of political parties

Ultimately Labor, the Greens and Teals would be happy to ban all firearms, while the Liberals might exempt water pistols. None has made a serious effort to engage Australia's one million licensed firearm owners as a constituency.

The National Party has been more supportive, with figures such as Senator Bridget McKenzie advocating on behalf of sporting shooters. However, the party's position remains cautious and largely defensive. Rather than questioning the foundations of Australia's firearms laws, the party accepts the National Firearms Agreement as an appropriate framework, arguing only that additional restrictions should not be introduced without consultation with rural stakeholders.

One Nation adopts a somewhat stronger position by explicitly recognising the legitimacy of sporting shooters, firearms businesses, clubs, farmers, landholders and recreational hunters. It argues that government efforts should focus on criminal misuse of firearms, illegal trafficking and organised crime rather than imposing additional regulatory burdens on law-abiding firearm owners, and advocates an evidence-based and practical approach to regulation.

However, both the Nationals and One Nation frame firearm ownership primarily as a rural and regional issue. This overlooks an important reality: the majority of licensed firearm owners live in metropolitan areas, even if many travel to rural locations for hunting or other recreational activities. The persistent assumption that legitimate firearm ownership is principally rural contributes to recurring proposals that would effectively confine civilian firearm ownership to country areas. Such proposals are founded on misconception rather than demographic reality.

More concerning is that no party with the potential to determine government policy approaches the subject based on principles. None addresses the assertion in the National Firearms Agreement, subsequently enacted in state laws, that the ownership of firearms is a privilege. None attempts to identify what gun laws are intended to achieve, or considers how to assess their effectiveness. And even when they claim that evidence is needed to justify changes, they do not specify what kind of evidence is relevant.

The National Firearms Agreement is not evidence-based. It has no objectives, no assessment of outcomes, and no review process. It was an emotion driven reaction to the Port Arthur tragedy, just like the changes introduced in response to the Bondi shooting.

If an objective can be implied, it is to prevent future mass shootings. That would, at least, be measurable. On that basis, the Port Arthur gun law changes have been a complete failure. While there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes a mass shooting, based on the common definition of four or more victims including the perpetrator there have been at least seven mass shootings in Australia subsequent to Port Arthur, including Bondi. Furthermore, that is more than what occurred in the same period prior to introduction of the Port Arthur gun laws.

Another objective might be inferred from the statements of former Prime Minister John Howard, who argued that Australia should avoid importing "American gun culture." Unlike reducing firearm homicide or preventing mass shootings, this objective is inherently subjective. It lacks any measurable definition, making it impossible to determine whether policies are succeeding or failing. Moreover, the emphasis on American culture is itself arbitrary. Countries such as Switzerland and New Zealand also have longstanding traditions of civilian firearm ownership, yet are rarely invoked in Australian policy debates.

Developing measurable objectives for firearms policy is neither difficult nor controversial. Reducing firearm-related crime, minimising mass casualty incidents, lower firearm homicide rates or preventing firearms from being acquired by individuals who present a demonstrable risk to public safety, for example. Once such objectives are specified, policy can be evaluated according to evidence rather than political symbolism.

The question then becomes whether Australia's existing firearms restrictions contribute to achieving these objectives. That question is rarely examined. Comparative evidence from other jurisdictions indicates that countries with substantially less restrictive firearms laws can nevertheless experience comparable, and in some cases lower, rates of firearm violence. Such comparisons do not by themselves establish causation, but they do challenge the assumption that tighter restrictions produce better public safety outcomes.

In the absence of measurable objectives, public policy is shaped by personal sentiment. John Howard famously declared that he "hates guns," a statement that reflected a personal value judgement rather than an empirical policy rationale. Some people hate alcohol, cigarettes and boxing too.

More recently, the governments of Western Australia and New South Wales have justified legislation designed to reduce the number of firearms owned by licensed individuals on the basis of "getting guns off the streets." Yet there is no evidence that reducing the number of legally owned firearms will produce measurable reductions in firearm violence.

Without clearly defined objectives and supporting evidence, such policies amount to political gestures rather than effective public safety measures.

A principled approach would instead distinguish between regulating people and regulating objects. Firearms do not commit crimes independently; criminal acts are committed by individuals. It is therefore logically defensible to prohibit firearm ownership by those demonstrably incapable of exercising responsibility, including children, individuals with severe mental incapacity and persons with histories of serious violence. The same reasoning supports secure storage requirements intended to prevent unauthorised access. These measures can be directly connected to identifiable public safety objectives.

By contrast, restrictions based primarily on firearm design or cosmetic characteristics are difficult to justify empirically. Both the Port Arthur and Bondi legislative reforms expanded prohibitions on particular categories of firearms, yet there is no evidence that a straight-pull rifle presents a greater public safety risk than a conventional bolt-action rifle, or that a lever-action shotgun with a seven-round magazine is more dangerous than an otherwise identical firearm limited to five rounds. Without empirical evidence linking such distinctions to measurable public safety outcomes, these classifications appear arbitrary.

History demonstrates that regulating weapons is not a modern phenomenon. Roman authorities restricted the carrying of swords while permitting daggers and clubs, and Elizabethan England imposed limits on sword length. The issue has always been political rather than technological: who should possess weapons, who should decide, and on what basis should those decisions be made? Should regulation rest upon clearly defined objectives and demonstrable evidence, or upon symbolism, emotion and personal preference?

Political parties that are genuinely seeking the support of Australia's licensed firearm owners should therefore articulate a principled philosophy of firearms regulation. That philosophy should begin by identifying legitimate public safety objectives, defining measurable outcomes, and evaluating laws according to evidence rather than political instinct.

Without such a framework, firearms policy will continue to be driven by reaction and rhetoric instead of reasoned public policy.