Australia had long been viewed as a global exemplar in weapons legislation – the Bondi attack has laid bare a much murkier reality.

On a weekend day in April 1996, a solitary shooter using rapid-fire weapons killed 35 people in the historic site of Port Arthur.

That horrific event nearly three decades ago, which ushered in some of the strictest firearm regulations in the world, can appear as a different era for many residents.

However, the shooting at Bondi this past Sunday, which left 15 dead, has revived the ghosts of the Port Arthur massacre.

Gun Ownership at a Record High

A analysis revealed that there are now more than four million privately-owned firearms across the country – a figure that is almost double the amount from two decades prior.

This means approximately a weapon for each small group of people.

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

The data also dispels the popular notion that guns are mainly owned by those in the countryside.

Guns are widespread in urban centres, with a large share located in major cities.

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

What Are Australia's Present Firearm Regulations?

Firearm regulations in Australia are inconsistent across the country, with a disparate implementation of rules in various regions.

Typically, to obtain a gun licence, an individual must be an adult, deemed a "fit and proper person", pass a competency test, and provide a "legitimate need" for ownership.

The accepted reasons include recreational hunting or pest control, competitive shooting, certain professional duties, and collecting.

However, significant gaps remain. For instance, minors in some areas can have supervision of a firearm from as young as pre-teen age.

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

Rapid-fire weapons were prohibited, and security screenings 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.

New Push 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 proposals now under consideration include:

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

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

A Complicated Debate

These reform efforts have sparked debate from some quarters.

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

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

Furthermore, a long-promised reform from 1996 – a national firearms register – remains incomplete, though it has now been listed as a key project.

A Painful Reminder

For reformers, the Bondi attack is a tragic indication that policies must evolve with technological advances.

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

While mass shootings remain relatively rare in Australia compared to some nations, the risk persists, and the ongoing issue of firearms circulating illegally – through black markets – continues to pose a challenge.

As one advocate reflected, "It's sad that it requires such a tragedy to get people to wake up and pay heed."