Gun Control and Public Safety: Rethinking Pakistan’s Arms Policy

The arms policy of any government is a reflection of the objectives it seeks to achieve in matters of national security. In the United States, the Second Amendment remains a topic of intense debate, particularly following recent mass shooting incidents that have prompted renewed calls for gun control. Despite this, the US government does not seriously consider repealing the Second Amendment, as it was framed with the foresight of protecting citizens against foreign invasion or tyrannical rule in the event that the state fails to defend its people.

When policymakers in the state of California introduced stricter gun control measures, the outcome has been far from reassuring. Gang violence has increased, attacks occur in broad daylight, and ordinary civilians are often left without the practical means of self-defence due to the fear of legal prosecution. This has raised serious questions about whether restrictive gun laws actually deter crime or simply disarm law-abiding citizens.

In Ukraine, the government began confiscating civilian-held weapons in 2012. This decision contributed to chaotic scenes during the crises of 2014 and later in 2022, when unarmed civilians were left exposed on the frontlines as Russian forces advanced, reportedly shooting anyone suspected of resistance. Only after civilians were permitted to bear arms did the situation shift in Ukraine’s favour, although arguably not to the extent it could have. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, strict firearms laws have coincided with a rise in gang-related violence on the streets of London. These examples collectively suggest that the issue is not the firearm itself, but the individual wielding it. Gun control, therefore, does not always produce the outcomes it promises.

The discussion above highlights a crucial reality: arms policy cannot remain static, outdated, or rooted in decades-old assumptions while the geopolitical and internal security environment continues to evolve rapidly. Pakistan, in particular, is a country that has been ravaged by terrorism. According to numerous security analysts, the nation is engaged in a form of fifth-generation warfare, a conflict in which more than 150,000 lives have been lost.

This war has largely been fought in urban environments—within cities, markets, and tribal regions alike. Even schools have not been spared, as tragically demonstrated by the APS massacre, which remains a painful reminder of the threats faced by civilians. Despite this reality, Pakistan’s arms policy remains a legacy of the colonial era. The British objective was clear: to keep the local population disarmed and submissive. Unfortunately, this same framework continues to govern firearms regulation in Pakistan today.

Pakistan urgently requires a dynamic and modern weapons policy that reflects the nature of contemporary threats faced by both civilians and the state. These threats are complex and broadly fall into two categories: foreign and domestic. Any new policy must strike a careful balance between empowering law-abiding citizens and ensuring that law enforcement agencies retain a decisive advantage. The policy should be simple, citizen-friendly, easy to regulate, and practical to enforce. The current laws, however, are contradictory, confusing, restrictive, and fundamentally unrealistic.

One of the most glaring flaws lies in the classification of Prohibited Bore (PB) and Non-Prohibited Bore (NPB) weapons. The existing framework is disconnected from technical and operational realities. Several calibres recognised worldwide as standard military ammunition are treated inconsistently under Pakistani law, creating confusion for civilians and law enforcement agencies alike.

For instance, 7.62×51mm and 5.56×45mm are both military calibres used extensively by armed forces across the world. Under Pakistani law, however, both are classified as NPB when used in semi-automatic rifles. In contrast, 7.62×39mm—another globally recognised military round—is classified as PB even when chambered in a bolt-action rifle. Such distinctions lack technical justification and clearly demonstrate the arbitrary nature of current classifications.

Similar inconsistencies exist in the legal definition of firearms. The MP5, a short-barrelled rifle firing 9mm ammunition, is sold in its semi-automatic configuration as a “pistol” simply because 9mm is classified as a pistol calibre under Pakistani law. Internationally, however, any firearm with a barrel exceeding eight inches and fitted with a buttstock is universally regarded as a rifle. This contradiction between law and technical reality further emphasises the need for reform.

To eliminate confusion, a simplified and rational classification system must be introduced. All automatic weapons, regardless of type, should be classified as PB. All semi-automatic and bolt-action firearms with bores smaller than .5 inches (12.7mm)—including calibres such as .22, .25, .30, .32, .38, .380, 9mm, 7.62×39mm, 7.62×51mm, 5.56/.223, .44, and .45—should be categorised as NPB. Likewise, all non-automatic shotguns should be classified as NPB, provided they cannot be converted into automatic firearms. Such reforms would bring clarity to the law while ensuring that law enforcement agencies retain superior firepower.

Provincial restrictions on weapon licences are another colonial relic that must be abolished. In a modern federation, licensed citizens should be free to travel across the country with their legally owned firearms, just as they do with driving licences. A nationally valid arms licence would reduce harassment, remove unnecessary barriers, and better reflect present-day realities.

Ammunition limits imposed on licence holders are equally outdated. When these restrictions were first introduced, firearm ownership was rare and training requirements minimal. Today, such limits leave no scope for regular practice or proficiency. Criminals do not adhere to ammunition limits; only law-abiding citizens are penalised. Laws that force compliance at the expense of competence ultimately undermine public safety.

Firearms regulation should prioritise responsibility rather than restriction alone. Mandatory training and psychological assessments must be prerequisites for issuing a fresh arms licence. Government-regulated and private firearm training schools and shooting ranges should be established, where applicants receive proper instruction and evaluation. This should be followed by a psychological assessment conducted by a government medical board before licence issuance.

No policy can succeed without effective enforcement. At present, Pakistan’s firearms regulations are fragmented and inconsistently applied. There is no standardised system for civilian education, training, or assessment, contributing to confusion rather than control. Clear laws, backed by institutional capacity, are essential for meaningful reform.

Advancements in firearms technology have further blurred traditional classifications. Weapons such as the MP5 can function as either a pistol or a short-barrelled rifle depending on whether a stock is attached. Similarly, many hunting rifles can fire multiple calibres while remaining semi-automatic or bolt-action. Existing laws fail to address such hybrid and multi-calibre weapons, leaving their legal status ambiguous.

Another major contradiction lies in the legal ownership of PB weapons. While civilians are permitted to own such firearms, licensed arms dealers are prohibited from importing them. This has encouraged illegal smuggling and the open sale of illicit weapons. Allowing licensed dealers to import PB weapons legally would reduce smuggling, strengthen regulation, and generate tax revenue for the state.

Finally, the process of obtaining an arms licence must be simplified and standardised. It should be as transparent and accessible as acquiring a national identity card or passport. Every law-abiding citizen should be able to apply for an arms licence at designated NADRA counters anywhere in the country.

In conclusion, Pakistan’s firearms laws require urgent modernisation. Aligning legal definitions with technical realities, removing colonial-era restrictions, and promoting responsible ownership through training and enforcement will not weaken public safety, it will strengthen it. A rational, transparent, and enforceable framework will empower law enforcement, curb illegal arms trade, and enable responsible citizens to exercise their right to self-defence within the rule of law.