Lured into gun debate, but it’s no bad thing

Just as she cranked into a US tour to promote New Zealand tourism and business as well as push the case for free trade, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has found talks and media slots suddenly becoming dominated by one topic: gun reform.

The primary school shootings in Uvalde, Texas that has so far claimed the lives of 19 pupils and two teachers have once again gripped the US, reopening a culture war fissure that seems to go away before opening up again with each fresh shooting.

Ardern, being arguably the most recent leader in the west to embark on significant gun law reform, suddenly becomes much more interesting.

Politicians are the same the world over – always casting around for ideas that they can convert into political products for their own use.

Ardern’s changes, overwhelmingly voted for during the last Parliament, were more or less lifted from former Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s actions in 1996.

The main planks were banning certain sorts of military-style weapons and launching a gun buyback scheme.

Whether these changes have really ‘‘worked’’ in New Zealand is an open question. Success is difficult to define. It was clearly easier to get high-powered weapons than many people thought, but while the March 15 shooting revealed that fact, it was a one-off and terrible event.

Of course fewer guns floating round in society is almost certainly safer than more, so the buyback scheme and rule changes have almost certainly had some positive effect. Ardern has been careful to say in the US that many people in New Zealand own and use guns for legitimate purposes.

Yet currently we seem to be in the middle of a gun crime wave in Auckland with shootings every other day. There is little evidence that the much-vaunted gun laws have stopped or slowed down these seemingly gangrelated drive-by shootings.

The situation in the US is another situation altogether. The US is a complicated place with different layers of government, constitutional arrangements and a vastly different and gun-laden history.

One congressman who met Ardern – Rick Larsen – who was clearly enamoured of the prime minister and is somewhat of a Democratic progressive, cautioned against foreign leaders interfering in the gun debate.

‘‘This is a US domestic issue, and it’s probably not in the best interests of other countries’ leaders to come out vocally and sort of try to help us with our business, just as vice versa,’’ he said. ‘‘There may be lessons in how we respond . . . but it would probably be best for us to look at what other countries have done, as opposed to having those leaders speak out.’’ And that’s from an Ardern fan. The PM, to her credit, is fastidiously cautious about not being seen to interfere in other nations’ domestic affairs and guns are no different.

The problem with guns is that, from the outside, it is easy to just criticise the US for having crazy gun policies – it does, and most countries do so in some form or other.

But there are historical, legal and cultural reasons why they are so. If it were easy to fix, it would have already been done.

Ardern does have a story to tell here about decisive leadership. And for

US politicians – a number of whom said today that it’s simply not good enough that shootings and school shooting are sort of accepted as normal – they may be the germ of new legislative solutions. Or not. But it is the topic consuming everyone.

For Ardern, the tragedy – as much as she would never have wished it to happen – has provided another strong talking point for her, especially in political engagements. Her trip has become more textured and more complicated as the US grapples with its own seemingly intractable problems.

AUCKLAND SHOOTINGS WIDESPREAD PAGE 4 NEW NORM IN US PAGE 20 BIDEN CALLS FOR LAW CHANGE PAGE 23