The profile of Sajid Akram, the man behind the Bondi attack, is emerging as investigators piece together a picture of secrecy, manipulation, and a long-standing interest in firearms that should have raised red flags long before violence erupted.

According to the ABC, Akram had been obsessed with guns for years, cultivated a pattern of manipulative behavior, and operated with a level of secrecy that isolated him from those who might have intervened.

The question everyone's asking now is the same one we ask after every attack: how did he get to this point without anyone stopping him?

Australia has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, implemented after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Those laws have been remarkably effective at preventing mass shootings. But they depend on a critical assumption: that warning signs are identified and acted upon before someone acquires a weapon.

In Akram's case, the warning signs were there. Friends and acquaintances described a fascination with firearms that went back years. He sought out gun-related content, talked about weapons, and showed the kind of intense interest that, in hindsight, looks like a massive red flag.

But red flags don't stop attacks. Intervention does.

The profile emerging from interviews is of a deeply secretive individual who compartmentalized his life, showing different faces to different people. That pattern of manipulation and concealment is common among attackers who plan violence over extended periods.

He wasn't a loner in the classic sense. He had social connections. But he controlled what people knew about him, keeping his darkest interests hidden from those who might have raised alarms.

The Bondi attack has reignited debates about how Australia identifies and intervenes with individuals at risk of committing violence. The country's gun laws are strong, but they're reactive. They control access to weapons. They don't prevent radicalization or obsession.

And in case, the obsession predated any ability to acquire a legal firearm.