There is talk in the media of a misconceived Coalition proposal to limit purchases of ammunition so that only a person who is a registered owner of a firearm which takes a particular type of ammunition may purchase the ammunition. This proposal is said to be a measure to somehow curb the current street shootings occurring in some parts of Sydney. It is claimed to be a police recommendation.

The present measures being used to solve the street shooting problem are not effective. A variety of ideas have been put forward, but none are sound. Using the Crime Commission to force victims to talk is a futile measure. The normal operational methods of the Crime Commission involve a great deal of background investigation using video surveillance and other electronic surveillance. This is to gather sufficient material to allow an incisive interrogation to be conducted. Where someone happens to be attacked, without their actual foreknowledge of the event, those normal methods do not apply.

Criminologists universally accept that risk of apprehension is the most significant deterrent to crime, not penalties. So threats to increase penalties where those which exist are already high, in the absence of demonstrable increases in detection, seem pointless.

The police know full well who the likely victims of these offences are, and the identity of the likely offenders. Clearly then, if sufficient resources were allocated for video and electronic surveillance of those persons the problem would be solved. But instead, the proposals are that lawful firearm users should bear further restrictions in order to achieve some vague outcome.

Too bad for the Category A licence holder who goes to a clay pigeon range and hires a shotgun. If he doesn't own one, presumably he would not be allowed to buy ammunition. Though not expressly indicated it would be the case that possession of "incorrect" ammunition would be an offence. Otherwise the provisions would be completely pointless. This seems to be a backdoor attempt to change the existing situation where it is lawful to allow a suitable licenceholder to borrow another licenceholder's firearm in NSW . So if a farmer's son borrowed a rifle in a calibre which he didn't own, that would be an offence because of the ammunition. The need therefore to own a sufficiently large number of different firearms to cover all needs would be created. This sits very oddly with contrary complaints that owners own too many.

The proposals should of course be rejected.