Australia had long been viewed as a global exemplar in weapons legislation – Bondi has exposed a more complicated situation.

On a weekend day in April 1996, a single attacker wielding powerful firearms murdered 35 people in the Tasmanian tourist destination of Port Arthur.

That horrific event nearly a generation ago, which led to some of the strictest weapons policies in the world, can seem like a different era for many citizens.

However, the tragedy in Bondi this past Sunday, which claimed 15 lives, has revived the ghosts of the 1996 shootings.

Weapons Holdings at a Unprecedented Level

A recent report revealed that there are now in excess of four million privately-owned firearms across the country – a figure that is nearly twice the amount from two decades prior.

This translates to approximately one firearm per seven citizens.

While the state of Queensland has the highest number of legal firearms, followed by New South Wales (NSW) and the state of Victoria, it is Tasmania and the Northern Territory 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 common in cities and their outskirts, with a significant portion located in urban hubs.

Critically, there are now weapons owned by a smaller group, with the typical gun owner possessing more than four firearms.

What Are Australia's Existing Weapons Policies?

Weapons legislation in Australia are inconsistent across the country, with a mixed implementation of rules between different jurisdictions.

Broadly speaking, to obtain a gun licence, an individual must be of legal age, deemed a "suitable candidate", pass a safety program, and provide a "valid purpose" for ownership.

The permitted justifications include hunting or culling, marksmanship, certain professional duties, and collecting.

However, significant gaps remain. For instance, young people in some areas can have use of a firearm from as young as early adolescence.

Following the Port Arthur massacre, a sweeping overhaul of national gun laws was enacted, leading to a voluntary hand-in of over 650,000 firearms.

Rapid-fire weapons were banned, and background checks alongside mandatory cooling-off periods for sales were introduced.

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

Fresh Calls for Firearm Policy Changes

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

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

Other proposals now under consideration include:

• Limiting the number of guns an individual can possess.
• Addressing "open-ended" licensing arrangements.
• Making formal citizenship a prerequisite for firearm ownership.
• Enhancing intelligence sharing during background check processes.

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

A Complicated Debate

These swift actions have drawn criticism from some quarters.

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

They suggest that political capital would be better spent improving intelligence rather than changing laws for the great bulk of law-abiding citizens.

Furthermore, a key proposed reform from 1996 – a country-wide gun database – remains incomplete, though it has now been listed as a urgent task.

Tragedy as a Wake-Up Call

For campaigners, the Bondi attack is a stark warning that gun laws must evolve with changing times.

They argue that modernisation is needed to "remain effective" and prevent future tragedies.

While mass shootings remain uncommon in Australia compared to some nations, the potential persists, and the challenge of weapons being misused – through black markets – continues to pose a problem.

As one advocate stated, "It is unfortunate that it takes such a devastating event to focus attention and pay heed."