Following Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in 1996, the country implemented some of the strictest gun regulations globally, including mandatory licensing, background checks, and firearm registration. However, experts suggest that the gradual loosening of these laws, their failure to adapt to the digital age, and lapses in background checks may have made it easier for the two suspects in Sunday’s shooting at a Hanukkah event on Sydney’s Bondi Beach to obtain weapons.

The attack, which claimed 15 lives, has sparked renewed scrutiny over laws once regarded as a national achievement. Australia generally experiences far fewer gun deaths annually than the United States does in a single day, a statistic often attributed to these regulations. Australia’s gun laws operate as a patchwork system managed by eight state and territory police forces, coordinated by the federal government after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. Over the years, some states have relaxed oversight, allowing people to acquire firearms with less scrutiny, experts said.

Authorities reported that the older Bondi shooter, Sajid Akram, 50, who was killed by police, had obtained his gun licence in 2023 and legally owned six firearms that he and his son allegedly used in the attack. In 2008, New South Wales removed a mandatory 28-day waiting period for individuals seeking multiple guns—a rule still present in other states. Gun control advocate Rebecca Peters noted that such waiting periods were intended to ensure stricter checks for each additional firearm.

In response to the Bondi shooting, Australia’s federal government acknowledged gaps in current legislation and proposed measures such as limiting the number of guns a licence holder can own and ending lifetime licences. Peters emphasized that reinstating a cooling-off period would be more effective in reducing gun circulation than imposing ownership limits.

Currently, nearly one million Australians hold gun licences, owning over four million firearms—more than at the time the 1996 laws were enacted. Surveys indicate that around two-thirds of Australians support stronger gun laws, with only 6% favoring relaxed regulations. Experts also highlighted weaknesses in vetting processes. Even when background checks are conducted, they are often superficial. In New South Wales, at least 240,000 of 259,000 licences were issued through categories like recreational hunting or target shooting, which require minimal verification. Membership in some gun clubs can be largely nominal, with clubs operating from community centers without permanent addresses and minimal attendance monitoring.

Public health academic Simon Chapman pointed out that many licence holders rarely engage in the activities justifying their licences, pursuing guns for personal possession rather than sporting use. Gun Control Australia’s Roland Browne suggested that removing recreational hunting as a valid reason for obtaining a licence could cut licences by two-thirds.

The licensing system relies on self-reported declarations regarding criminal convictions or mental health history but does not automatically assess broader behavioral or social indicators, such as online activity or family input. Peters noted that dangerous behavior expressed on social media could be overlooked under current rules. The surviving suspect in the Bondi attack had known intelligence links to a group suspected of association with Islamic State, but this did not automatically trigger police notification. New South Wales Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon explained that intelligence is not formally required under the Firearms Act when issuing licences.

The Bondi incident also highlighted that non-citizens can obtain Australian gun licences. Sajid Akram, an Indian national on a student visa, legally acquired his firearms, raising concerns about background checks for those without direct ties to local authorities. Tom Kenyon, CEO of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, said that some gun clubs share ranges and therefore lack fixed addresses. He emphasized that no amount of training could have prevented the attack; the failure lay in the lack of information available to authorities, which hindered decisions that could have protected the community.