The nation of Australia was long seen as a world leader in firearm regulation – the Bondi attack has exposed a far more complex truth.

On a spring day in April 1996, a single attacker wielding rapid-fire weapons took the lives of 35 people in the Tasmanian tourist destination of Port Arthur.

That massacre nearly three decades ago, which led to some of the most stringent gun laws in the world, can seem like a different era for many citizens.

However, the shooting at Bondi this past Sunday, which claimed 15 lives, has brought back painful recollections of the 1996 shootings.

Weapons Holdings at a Historic Peak

A study released earlier this year revealed that there are now in excess of four million guns in private hands across the country – a figure that is roughly two times the amount from about 20 years ago.

This translates to approximately one firearm per seven citizens.

While the state of Queensland has the largest arsenal, followed by New South Wales (NSW) and the state of Victoria, it is the island state and the Northern Territory that have the highest rate of firearm ownership.

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

Weapons are prevalent in urban centres, with a large share located in population centres.

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

What Are Australia's Current Gun Laws?

Weapons legislation in Australia are not uniform across the country, with a patchwork implementation of rules across states and territories.

Typically, to apply for a gun licence, an individual must be of legal age, deemed a "suitable candidate", pass a training and safety course, and provide a "valid purpose" for ownership.

The accepted reasons include sport shooting or animal management, target or sport shooting, certain job-related needs, and as a hobby.

However, significant gaps remain. For instance, young people in some jurisdictions can have access to a firearm from as young as early adolescence.

Following the Port Arthur massacre, a major rewrite of national gun laws was enacted, leading to a massive buyback of over 650,000 firearms.

Certain types of firearms were outlawed, and security screenings alongside delays for sales were introduced.

A key tenet of these reforms was the elimination of "home security" as a justifiable cause for gun ownership.

Fresh Calls for Firearm Policy Changes

In the hours following the Bondi shooting, political leaders were unequivocal about the need to tighten gun laws.

A country-wide firearm surrender program was announced, marking the most significant such effort since 1996.

Other proposals now under consideration include:

• Limiting the number of guns an individual can have registered.
• Ending "perpetual" licensing arrangements.
• Making formal citizenship a requirement 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 maintain that restricting ownership would not have averted an attack driven by violent beliefs.

They suggest that focus would be better spent combating radicalisation rather than changing laws for the overwhelming number of law-abiding citizens.

Furthermore, a long-promised reform from 1996 – a national firearms register – remains unfinished, though it has now been listed as a urgent task.

A Painful Reminder

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

They argue that reform is needed to "keep up-to-date" and safeguard communities.

While mass shootings remain infrequent in Australia compared to some nations, the risk persists, and the ongoing issue of firearms circulating illegally – through theft – continues to pose a danger.

As one advocate reflected, "It is unfortunate that it needs such a devastating event to prompt action and take notice."