Prof Tom Frame explains why Australia’s gun laws might not have necessarily kept us safer.
It’s roughly a 9 minute listen, basically a UNSW academic arguing that gun laws as a whole shouldn’t be the only tools in preventing mass shootings, and that as a whole the gun laws haven’t made us any safer.
He argues that though gun laws are needed, the implementation of which has been done poorly, and there are things he would change.
Such as?
He starts by stating that he isn’t a fan of how the laws were framed, and that they seemed arbitrary, and set out law abiding shooters as the adversaries.
One thing he mentions is longer licence periods, from 5 to 10 years. He argues that there is no evidence that the shorter licence leads to less shootings. He’s a big support of reducing the bureaucracy, and using the resources to solve other community crime problems.
He also says a bunch of stuff about how the extensive enforcement and red tape on LAFOs doesn’t really bring about any significant outcomes, and better results could be achieved by having the resources in customs instead to block illegal imports of firearms would reduce firearm crime more.
He argues that as there isn’t a demonstrable benefit, in that crime rates didn’t didn’t significantly change, the government should have no right interfering in peoples lives, and making it harder for them to be shooters, recreational, or vocational.
Sounds like a Libertarian. My kind of guy.