When a tragedy strikes, the immediate response is often more regulation. Yet the recent incident in Australia raises tough questions about whether stricter laws actually solve the problem.

The jurisdiction already had stringent firearm restrictions in place. Intelligence agencies had tracked the individuals involved for years before the attack occurred. So what went wrong?

Twenty minutes. That's how long innocent people endured gunfire while waiting for law enforcement to respond and neutralize the threat.

It's worth asking: does adding more rules fix enforcement gaps? Or should the focus shift to how existing protocols are executed and resources deployed? Sometimes the issue isn't the framework—it's the execution.