No principles in the firearms policies of political parties

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.