Australia was long seen as a global exemplar in firearm regulation – Bondi has revealed a much murkier reality.

On a weekend day in the year 1996, a single attacker using powerful firearms took the lives of 35 people in the Tasmanian tourist destination of Port Arthur.

That horrific event nearly thirty years ago, which led to some of the most stringent gun laws in the world, can feel like a different era for many citizens.

However, the Bondi Beach attack this past Sunday, which left 15 dead, has revived the ghosts of the Tasmanian tragedy.

Weapons Holdings at a Record High

A analysis revealed that there are now more than four million weapons owned by civilians across the country – a figure that is almost double the amount from about 20 years ago.

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

While the state of Queensland has the highest number of legal firearms, followed by NSW and Victoria, it is the island state and the Northern Territory that have the greatest density of weapons.

The data also contradicts the common view that guns are mainly owned by people in regional areas.

Weapons are widespread in metropolitan and suburban areas, with a sizable percentage located in population centres.

Critically, there are now weapons owned by a smaller group, with the average licence holder possessing several firearms.

Examining Australia's Present Firearm Regulations?

Firearm regulations in Australia are not uniform across the country, with a mixed implementation of rules between different jurisdictions.

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

The permitted justifications include hunting or culling, marksmanship, certain professional duties, and as a hobby.

However, significant shortcomings remain. For instance, young people in some jurisdictions can have use of 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 large-scale surrender scheme of over 650,000 firearms.

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

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

Renewed Demands for Gun Law Reform

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

A weapons collection initiative was announced, marking the largest such effort since 1996.

Other proposals now under consideration include:

• Restricting the number of guns an individual can possess.
• Addressing "open-ended" licensing arrangements.
• Making permanent residency a requirement for firearm ownership.
• Enhancing intelligence sharing during vetting processes.

There are also calls for periodic reassessments of existing licence holders, acknowledging that "situations evolve" over time.

A Nuanced Discussion

These reform efforts have sparked debate from some quarters.

Pro-gun advocates maintain that restricting ownership would not have stopped an attack driven by violent beliefs.

They suggest that focus would be better spent combating radicalisation rather than restricting lawful owners for the great bulk of law-abiding citizens.

Furthermore, a long-promised reform from 1996 – a national firearms register – remains not yet operational, though it has now been listed as a priority.

A Painful Reminder

For reformers, the Bondi attack is a horrific reminder that gun laws must evolve with new threats.

They argue that modernisation is needed to "remain effective" and safeguard communities.

While mass shootings remain relatively rare in Australia compared to some nations, the potential persists, and the ongoing issue of weapons being misused – through poor storage – continues to pose a danger.

As one advocate reflected, "It's sad that it takes such a loss of life to focus attention and take notice."