Apparently, in the Coalition party room this morning, the PM and the deputy PM spoke about the need for the government to make its policies more “tactile”. At the Guardian Katharine Murphy said she thought this meant that “the government needs to talk about policies that have real impacts on real people”.

Malcolm Turnbull has his theory right. This has been a major failure of the first year of his government – think “innovation” or the six-point economic plan. (How many of those points can you recall?)

And yet only hours earlier Turnbull had demonstrated that, when it comes to the practical side of this equation, he still has it all wrong.

On ABC radio this morning Fran Kelly asked the prime minister whether he would negotiate with Senator David Leyonhjelm to lift a ban on the Adler level-action shotgun. The gun is apparently “capable of rapid fire for several rounds without reloading” [paywall]. This was following a report in the Australian [paywall] that this is precisely what Leyonhjelm was demanding in exchange for passing the PM’s laws to crack down on unions.

The PM answered. Or, to rephrase, he responded, but did not answer, simply offering platitudes about respecting senators and the good discussions that were to come.

Most Australians, myself included, don’t know a lot about guns. But there are few policies more “tactile”. It doesn’t take a lot to imagine the impacts of loosened gun control – we see the consequences in the United States, and they terrify us. It’s why even John Howard’s toughest critics see his action on guns as one of his biggest achievements. And so the slightest suggestion that Howard’s framework will be picked apart will upset people.

Perhaps there are nuances regarding this particular gun that argue for its exceptional status. But it doesn’t seem like it. Those who spend their lives arguing for restrictions on guns say the Adler isn’t technically a self-loading shotgun, but acts like one. Leyonhjelm and his comrades argue it’s outside of the rules Howard set up. That might be technically true, but what Howard did was about community safety. That’s the test here – does importing this gun compromise our current understanding of the safety of our society? The answer is pretty clearly yes.

Later in the day, after Bill Shorten had attacked, and after Tony Abbott had also attacked (despite the fact the horse-trading had begun when he was PM) Turnbull guaranteed the ban on the Adler would be permanent. Good.

There are two problems for Turnbull. The first is that he should have got this immediately: looking like he was even considering horse-trading on gun laws was always going to be a disaster. This is the type of thing that a political leader needs to understand instinctively. The second is that he looks, once again, like he doesn’t have clear lines over which he is not willing to step.

This second issue is incredibly tricky for the PM. On many issues – this one included – there are deep cracks in the Coalition, either between the Nationals and the Liberals or between the conservatives and the moderates. Understandably, this means Turnbull will have to consult at times, and will avoid being strident on issues even when he does have a clear position.

But he cannot afford to look like this on every single issue. What are the moral boundaries Turnbull is not prepared to cross? I’m certain the PM has them. I’m also sure the population couldn’t tell you what they are. And that’s a political problem.

There’s one issue which steadfastly refuses to become tactile, by the way, and that is the treatment of asylum seekers in our offshore detention centres. Amnesty International has just released a new report accusing Australia of deliberate torture. Our regime is “explicitly designed to inflict incalculable damage on hundreds of women, men and children”.

Asked about the report this morning, and about a 17-year-old girl who featured on last night’s Four Corners episode about offshore detention, the prime minister pointed to the many people who have drowned attempting to come to Australia – people who therefore are not able to be heard.

Those deaths are an important part of the discussion around the principle of offshore detention, but they are not relevant to the accusations of deliberate harm, and of horrific neglect, and of overlooked abuse, and of neverending detention, which we are now hearing every month or so, and which form part of Amnesty’s conclusions. It was another example of the prime minister having a response to a question, but no answer.

Today’s links