You go through an entire breakdown of something that isn't a ban, explain how it isn't a ban, and yet land on the opposite position.
I have no idea why you expect me to shed tears about the difficulty of procuring or storing a gun. It should absolutely be damn hard.
We make plenty of things hard. Becoming a doctor is hard. Becoming a lawyer is hard. Getting to fly a plane is hard.
We gatekeep a lot of things in society, when there is rational interest at doing so. You may disagree that gun violence warrants such restrictions. But that doesn't mean these laws equal a ban.
When you couple that with the restrictions of actual use, it is a ban for all intents and purposes. The gun can only be used in one location, and you sacrifice your right to privacy (in addition to warrant less search) in your home or vehicle just to own one. You cannot even realistically use the weapon for defense (its most practical purpose) because by the time you manage to unlock the gun, unlock the ammunition, and load the gun, the criminal (who has an AR-15 or other banned gun because he doesn’t care about gun laws) has already killed you.
It’s a ban, in all but name. Which, of course, you know.
Which will never happen in America because firearm ownership is protected by the Constitution. Which you also know.
Again, you either know nothing about the laws in Canada (saying that America could follow such a system) or you do know and instead are advocating a ban in all but name (which can never happen).
Like I said, either way you’re wrong.