> Thankfully we have nothing of the threat model here (which primarily is the almost unfettered access to high powered firearms they have in the USA). No offen

> Thankfully we have nothing of the threat model here (which primarily is the almost unfettered access to high powered firearms they have in the USA). No offense to Australia, but the Aussie PM isn’t a continual worldwide target from every terrorism group and some nation states. If you note, even when the US President is in a gun-free country, the motorcade and security processes are still at extreme levels. The motorcade is designed to withstand rocket propelled grenades, chemical weapons, and even EMP attacks. Weapons that nobody except terror groups or nation states have access to. While a lone gunman with a rifle is a legitimate threat, the motorcade is designed around a much more complicated threat model. Protecting against a guy with a gun is relatively easy. The assassination of any US president would send world markets into immediate chaos as well as create a dire world security situation as “bad” countries and organizations would seek to exploit the situation. Just as the World Trade Center attack was a symbolic action, taking out the US president would have a similar effect. While an assassination of the Australian PM would be tragic, it isn’t even close to having the same impact. And prior to Australia having their gun ban, the Aussie PM still didn’t have the enormously protective motorcade of the US president.