The nation of Australia was widely regarded as a global exemplar in gun control – the Bondi attack has laid bare a more complicated situation.

On a Sunday afternoon in April 1996, a solitary shooter wielding semi-automatic rifles murdered 35 people in the Tasmanian tourist destination of Port Arthur.

That national tragedy nearly thirty years ago, which sparked some of the toughest firearm regulations in the world, can feel like a different era for many citizens.

However, the shooting at Bondi this past Sunday, which left 15 dead, has brought back painful recollections of the Port Arthur massacre.

Gun Ownership at a Record High

A analysis revealed that there are now over four million weapons owned by civilians across the country – a figure that is almost double the amount from the late 1990s.

This equates to approximately one firearm per seven citizens.

While Queensland has the most registered guns, followed by New South Wales (NSW) and the state of Victoria, it is Tasmania and the NT that have the most guns per person.

The data also challenges the widespread belief that guns are mostly possessed by those in the countryside.

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

Critically, there are now firearms concentrated among fewer owners, with the typical gun owner possessing over four firearms.

What Are Australia's Existing Weapons Policies?

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

Broadly speaking, to apply for a gun licence, an individual must be an adult, deemed a "suitable candidate", pass a training and safety course, and provide a "valid purpose" for ownership.

The permitted justifications include sport shooting or animal management, target or sport shooting, certain job-related needs, and collecting.

However, significant loopholes remain. For instance, minors in some states can have supervision 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 massive buyback of over 650,000 firearms.

Rapid-fire weapons were prohibited, and vetting procedures alongside mandatory cooling-off periods for sales were introduced.

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

Fresh Calls for Regulatory Tightening

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

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

Other suggested measures now under consideration include:

• Capping the number of guns an individual can possess.
• Ending "perpetual" licensing arrangements.
• Making Australian citizenship a condition for firearm ownership.
• Improving intelligence sharing during background check processes.

There are also calls for ongoing evaluations of existing licence holders, acknowledging that "people's circumstances can change" over time.

An Ongoing Controversy

These proposed changes have met with opposition from some quarters.

Pro-gun advocates argue that limiting gun numbers would not have averted an attack driven by extremist ideology.

They suggest that political capital would be better spent combating radicalisation rather than changing laws for the great bulk of responsible owners.

Furthermore, a critical reform from 1996 – a national firearms register – remains incomplete, though it has now been listed as a urgent task.

A Painful Reminder

For campaigners, the Bondi attack is a tragic indication that policies must be updated with technological advances.

They argue that modernisation 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 guns in the wrong hands – through poor storage – continues to pose a problem.

As one advocate stated, "It is regrettable that it requires such a devastating event to prompt action and take notice."