The nation of Australia had long been viewed as a world leader in firearm regulation – the Bondi attack has revealed a much murkier truth.

On a spring day in 1996, a single attacker wielding powerful firearms killed 35 people in the historic site of Port Arthur.

That national tragedy nearly a generation ago, which led to some of the most stringent firearm regulations in the world, can seem like a bygone age for many residents.

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

Weapons Holdings at a Historic Peak

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

This translates 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 the state of Victoria, it is Tasmania and the NT that have the greatest density of weapons.

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

Firearms are widespread 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 more than four firearms.

Understanding Australia's Present Firearm Regulations?

Gun control laws in Australia are inconsistent across the country, with a patchwork implementation of rules in various regions.

Typically, to apply for a gun licence, an individual must be over 18, deemed a "fit and proper person", pass a training and safety course, and provide a "valid purpose" for ownership.

The accepted reasons include recreational hunting or pest control, target or sport shooting, certain occupational requirements, and collecting.

However, significant loopholes remain. For instance, individuals under 18 in some areas can have access to 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.

Automatic and semi-automatic rifles were prohibited, and security screenings alongside waiting periods for sales were introduced.

A key tenet of these reforms was the elimination of "self-defence" as a acceptable grounds for gun ownership.

Fresh Calls for Regulatory Tightening

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

A national gun buyback scheme was unveiled, marking the most significant such effort since 1996.

Other suggested measures now under consideration include:

• Restricting the number of guns an individual can possess.
• Reforming "perpetual" licensing arrangements.
• Making Australian citizenship a prerequisite for firearm ownership.
• Enhancing intelligence sharing during background check processes.

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

A Complicated Debate

These proposed changes have drawn criticism from some quarters.

Pro-gun advocates argue that imposing caps would not have stopped an attack driven by extremist ideology.

They suggest that resources would be better spent combating radicalisation rather than tightening regulations for the overwhelming number of licensed individuals.

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

A Catalyst for Change

For long-time advocates, the Bondi attack is a tragic indication that regulations must be updated with changing times.

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 weapons being misused – through theft – continues to pose a challenge.

As one advocate noted, "It's sad that it requires such a loss of life to get people to wake up and take notice."