Australia was long seen as a international standard-bearer in weapons legislation – the Bondi attack has laid bare a far more complex situation.

On a spring day in April 1996, a lone gunman using semi-automatic rifles killed 35 people in the Tasmanian tourist destination of Port Arthur.

That national tragedy nearly a generation ago, which ushered in some of the toughest weapons policies in the world, can feel like a bygone age for many citizens.

However, the tragedy in Bondi this past Sunday, which left 15 dead, has rekindled memories of the Tasmanian tragedy.

Gun Ownership at a Historic Peak

A recent report revealed that there are now more than four million privately-owned firearms across the country – a figure that is almost double the amount from the late 1990s.

This means 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 the state of Victoria, it is the island state and the NT that have the most guns per person.

The data also contradicts the widespread belief that guns are primarily held by people in regional areas.

Guns are prevalent in metropolitan and suburban areas, with a large share located in urban hubs.

Critically, there are now weapons owned by a smaller group, with the registered individual possessing over four firearms.

Understanding Australia's Present Firearm Regulations?

Weapons legislation in Australia are not uniform across the country, with a disparate implementation of rules between different jurisdictions.

Typically, to obtain a gun licence, an individual must be of legal age, deemed a "suitable candidate", pass a competency test, and provide a "legitimate need" for ownership.

The allowable purposes include recreational hunting or pest control, competitive shooting, certain job-related needs, and collecting.

However, significant gaps remain. For instance, individuals under 18 in some jurisdictions can have use of a firearm from as young as pre-teen age.

Following the Port Arthur massacre, a comprehensive reform of national gun laws was enacted, leading to a large-scale surrender scheme of over 650,000 firearms.

Certain types of firearms were prohibited, and background checks alongside mandatory cooling-off periods for sales were introduced.

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

Renewed Demands for Firearm Policy Changes

In the wake the Bondi shooting, political leaders were forceful about the need to tighten gun laws.

A country-wide firearm surrender program 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 have registered.
• Reforming "open-ended" licensing arrangements.
• Making Australian citizenship a requirement for firearm ownership.
• Strengthening intelligence sharing during licence application processes.

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

A Complicated Debate

These proposed changes have met with opposition from some quarters.

Pro-gun advocates contend that limiting gun numbers would not have stopped an attack driven by violent beliefs.

They suggest that resources would be better spent improving intelligence rather than changing laws for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens.

Furthermore, a critical reform from 1996 – a centralised weapon tracking system – remains unfinished, though it has now been listed as a priority.

A Catalyst for Change

For long-time advocates, the Bondi attack is a stark warning that policies must be updated with technological advances.

They argue that strengthening is needed to "keep up-to-date" and prevent future tragedies.

While mass shootings remain infrequent in Australia compared to some nations, the threat persists, and the challenge of firearms circulating illegally – through poor storage – continues to pose a problem.

As one advocate reflected, "It's sad that it takes such a devastating event to focus attention and pay heed."