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.
We will have to disagree about the plain meaning of your sentence as written. I now know that you meant it to mean "outlawed as per the UK or severely restricted as per the Australian".
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.
Well - as in the case of my understanding of what you wrote, the problem could be your understanding, or what I wrote. We are unlikely to agree as to which it was. I am a bit puzzled, however as to what question you thought you were answering by asking me questions about various makes of gun. And I can only assume you are using some kind of royal plural when you refer to "us", as I have no evidence that anyone else is in need of clarification.
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?"
The police decide, in the first instance, in accordance with their interpretation of the law, as they decide lots of other things, in your country and mine. If their decision is arbitrary you can appeal. Read Tony's post for an account of how and why all that doesn't matter to us in the way it apparently does to you. In the real world, the situation is as I described it - anyone who wants to hunt or target shoot and doesn't have a criminal record can do so with minimal impediment, except in relation to what kind of gun they can buy. The cost of joining a gun club is insignificant compared to the cost of the guns and the ammunition.
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.
As I explained above, our officials don't get to make decisions based on whims, whether the decisions are about guns or about any of the other thousands of things officials make decisions about, in your country and mine. They have to make them accordance with the law and if you don't like their decision you can appeal it.
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.
Oh come on. This is getting silly. Surely you don't really think it is safe to assume that there are no guidelines because the guidelines don't happen to be listed in a Wikipedia article.
A gun is a gun. I suppose politicians don't want to touch that one.
Here we are getting closer to an area of agreement. Bureaucratic distinctions between different kinds of gun are always going to be open to criticism and politicians are always going to go for what sounds good.
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.
John Howard was able to legislate for changes to the gun law regime because almost everyone strongly agreed with him - almost all the people and almost all the elected politicians of all parties. The changes were made by people's elected representatives voting in Parliament, not by personal fiat of John Howard. If almost everyone, Democrat and Republican, strongly agreed with your President on something, it would probably happen, at least in the first instance, no? Those who disagreed could of course challenge the constitutionality of changes to the law, as they could in Australia. If the people and their elected representatives had disagreed with John Howard he wouldn't have been able to do anything. You are making a distinction with little substance in it. In fact I suspect - I am open to correction on this - that your President can do rather more by executive order than our Prime Minister can by issuing any kind of personal instruction.
I've become quite impressed with Australians. I'd hate to think they haven't outgrown the antiquated concept of a monarchy.
We have differing views on how best to select our purely ceremonial Head of State. I would personally prefer some kind of Republic, as would almost all of our gun control advocates, while almost all Australians who would agree with you about gun control would prefer to stick with the Queen.