I am not sure about the purpose of your questions.
It's quite clear that I differentiated between the UK and Australia when I said "calling for guns to be entirely outlawed as per the UK or even the Australia model."
For the sake of this discussion I see absolutely zero difference between "outlawed" and "banned." It's the same thing. So to help you with the reading: outlawed as per the UK OR EVEN
the Australia model. Which means outlawed or severely restricted. Why you quibble to the point of distraction about a sentence whose meaning is clear to most anybody is something I don't wish to speculate.
But I do find your OTOH remark not well written because I don't understand what the heck you mean. You start off with a 100% wrong assumption "your intent is to demonstrate your knowledge" (my intent was to answer a question directly asked and whose answer benefits everyone participating in the discussion. It's a key point, oft misunderstood) but the rest of your sentence is scrambled no? Clear it up for us."which I don't share and which I don't consider necessary to participate in the discussion."
Sure, detailed knowledge of firearms isn't required to participate in this discussion.. heck, some have insulted, baited, name called, and been quite rude based on no knowledge whatsoever, which is why it's so easy to let it go. But you stated earlier "but if I wanted to hunt or target shoot I could get hold of a suitable gun without much difficulty provided I joined a gun club and installed secure storage."
So you won't mind telling me how one develops a "need" for hunting or target shooting, something according to your link you MUST be able to provide? And what does a "gun club" cost in Australia? Is a need satisfied by "I'd like to take a hunting trip up north" or must you show you need the meat to subsist? Who decides your.. well.. we can't call it a 'right", so lets call change that to "who gives you permission or allows you to own a firearm by acceptance, or not, of your "need?"
My point here is you might not be able to do as you say if you have someone making the decision that doesn't believe hin hunting, doesn't like you, doesn't like the color of your car.. Because you no longer have a right. You're only conditionally allowed on the whim of some official.. Perhaps that suits you, but it doesn't suit the majority of Americans. When you take the "right" out of the constitution which admittedly yours never had.. then you become the subject of whoever holds that power over you. A different way of doing government. A way we had a little fracas over called The Revolutionary War.. So you can understand that those of us with a strong sense of history value our rights.
But yes, "the Australian model" as I eluded is not that guns are totally outlawed. They are only subject. Subject to the opinion of someone not you.. without clear guidelines they must act under. Or at least the guidelines were not listed in your otherwise complete reference.
I find something interesting though. If one shows a need of target shooting or hunting they can obtain a centerfire rifle.. bolt action.. holds ten or less rounds. The basic function of a sniper rifle. There are some restrictions on cartridges though, .338 Lapua, .416 Barrett, and .50 BMG.. are restricted. Those are three fine sniper rifle calibers, but there are dozens of other ones equally effective. In the custom realm tens of thousands. And sniper rifles have the potential to do far more damage than assault rifles. So why push for control of one so heavily and not the other? I think two reasons. 1. Sniper rifles take far more skill to use effectively. 2. Sniper rifles also FUNCTIONALLY are the same as hunting rifles.. in the same way "assault rifles" are the same as recreational rifles. A gun is a gun. I suppose politicians don't want to touch that one.
Well, if you don't want to answer questions showing your knowledge of firearms.. how about a more open question. John Howard as stated in his autobiography "hates" guns.. a very strong emotion. Ever wonder where he developed this hate? And he states he "seized the opportunity with the Port Author massacre" to push through your restrictive gun control So one man with hate of the subject of a law.. admittedly took advantage of the people in writing new laws. Interesting. Our laws get their power from our constitution and our constitution is written to prevent one man from having such control over laws (something our President often needs reminding of).. As a people American's reject such power. My question: Do you think Australia's "conditioning" as "subjects" of the Queen is responsible for their.. well.. being okay with being controlled like that? Personally I haven't seen this trait in the Australians I've come to call friends.. but they don't belong to that vast majority who are okay with the current gun laws. In all seriousness, if you read through this thread I've become quite impressed with Australians. I'd hate to think they haven't outgrown the antiquated concept of a monarchy..