Australia was widely regarded as a world leader in firearm regulation – the Bondi attack has exposed a more complicated situation.

On a spring day in April 1996, a single attacker using semi-automatic rifles took the lives of 35 people in the historic site of Port Arthur.

That horrific event nearly a generation ago, which ushered in some of the toughest gun laws in the world, can seem like a different era for many residents.

However, the tragedy in Bondi this past Sunday, which resulted in 15 fatalities, has brought back painful recollections of the Port Arthur massacre.

Gun Ownership at a Record High

A study released earlier this year revealed that there are now over four million privately-owned firearms across the country – a figure that is nearly twice the amount from the late 1990s.

This translates to approximately a weapon for each small group of people.

While the state of Queensland has the most registered guns, followed by NSW and the state of Victoria, it is Tasmania and the Northern Territory that have the greatest density of weapons.

The data also dispels the popular notion that guns are mostly possessed by those in the countryside.

Guns are common in cities and their outskirts, with a sizable percentage located in population centres.

Critically, there are now more guns in fewer hands, with the average licence holder possessing over four firearms.

Understanding Australia's Existing Weapons Policies?

Firearm regulations in Australia are inconsistent across the country, with a disparate implementation of rules between different jurisdictions.

Broadly speaking, to apply for a gun licence, an individual must be of legal age, deemed a "responsible individual", pass a competency test, and provide a "genuine reason" for ownership.

The permitted justifications include recreational hunting or pest control, competitive shooting, certain occupational requirements, and as a hobby.

However, significant gaps remain. For instance, young people in some states can have use of a firearm from as young as 10 or 12 years old.

Following the Port Arthur massacre, a sweeping overhaul of national gun laws was enacted, leading to a voluntary hand-in of over 650,000 firearms.

Automatic and semi-automatic rifles were outlawed, and vetting procedures alongside delays for sales were introduced.

A key tenet of these reforms was the rejection of "self-defence" as a valid reason for gun ownership.

Fresh Calls for Regulatory Tightening

In the wake the Bondi shooting, political leaders were unequivocal about the need to strengthen gun laws.

A national gun buyback scheme was proposed, marking the most significant such effort since 1996.

Other planned reforms now under consideration include:

• Restricting the number of guns an individual can legally own.
• Addressing "indefinite" licensing arrangements.
• Making formal citizenship a prerequisite for firearm ownership.
• Strengthening intelligence sharing during vetting processes.

There are also calls for periodic reassessments of existing licence holders, acknowledging that "individuals can be radicalised" over time.

A Complicated Debate

These swift actions have drawn criticism from some quarters.

Pro-gun advocates argue that restricting ownership would not have stopped an attack driven by radicalisation.

They suggest that resources would be better spent addressing root causes rather than tightening regulations for the overwhelming number of responsible owners.

Furthermore, a key proposed reform from 1996 – a country-wide gun database – remains not yet operational, though it has now been listed as a key project.

Tragedy as a Wake-Up Call

For long-time advocates, the Bondi attack is a tragic indication that gun laws must evolve with technological advances.

They argue that strengthening is needed to "address deficiencies" and protect public safety.

While mass shootings remain uncommon in Australia compared to some nations, the risk persists, and the legacy of guns in the wrong hands – through black markets – continues to pose a danger.

As one advocate reflected, "It's sad that it requires such a devastating event to prompt action and take notice."