No, but it would almost certainly be better.
I’m on the pro-gun side of the debate but Der Trihs is certainly correct in saying that smuggling guns from the U.S. to Mexico is a serious issue.
Odesio
And the solution is to close the damn border with Mexico, not fuck over the second-amendment rights of Americans in Vermont and Oklahoma and Oregon and Alaska and Indiana. It’s not our fault that their stupid, incompetent corrupt government doesn’t know how to keep order in their pathetic third-world country.
Unless, of course, like me you think that public gun ownership is bad here AND there, and that the Second Amendment is a bad idea.
And it IS in part our fault that they can’t keep order.
Well, it’s partly our fault insomuch as the illegal drug trade is what’s fueling most of the Mexican violence.
I’m in favor of completely legalizing all drugs, so if I were the president, there would be no need for people to fight over drugs. The war on drugs would be over.
Those two things are, however, mutually exclusive for many people, including myself.
I’ve got no interest in marijuana or any other currently controlled substance, and whilst I support the legalisation of marijuana, I’m not prepared to give up my ability to own firearms so other people can get high.
I agree. Though I think it has more to do with the war on drugs than it does the gun smuggling.
Odesio
What does it mean to “close the border”. Mexico is our #2 trading partner, surely you can’t mean close off all traffic between the countries?
Australia is probably a useful comparison point.
Gun ownership here used to be fairly straightforward, and was drastically curtailed after our Port Arthur Massacre. It was a sudden change, but was successful because of gradual social change in my view.
Overall ownership had become a pretty small minority, making it politically pretty easy to do. It wouldnt be so quick in the US because its less urbanised than Oz, but similar patterns do seem to be occurring, albeit much more slowly.
Otara
This bit of nonsense implies that the United States is a major manufacturer of small arms; in fact, aside from service pistols and carbines that are intended primarily for law enforcement use and automatic weapons only distributed to the military, gun manufacture in the United States is on a significant decline coincident with legal action against low quality gun manufacturers and the aforementioned decrease in hunting. Most gun manufacturing today is in China, various members of the former Eastern Bloc, Israel, South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil.
This bit of utter hyperbole is typical of the fearmongering of gun control advocates. Despite this supposed “ocean of guns” only a tiny fraction of the estimated 250 million firearms in the United States are every used in any kind of crime, and gun-related crime has been on an overall decline since the mid-1980s and not associated with any standing gun control implementations.
As for the o.p., I find myself in general agreement with Argent Towers, ** SenorBeef**, Chronos that, for better or worse, that the view of firearms ownership as a protected right will decline over time and as regular association with firearms becomes less common among the population the influence of embellishment and opprobrium will have more effect. As I’ve grown up around and handling firearms with professional training I have no fear (nor to I take special thrill) in handling them, but I find a great degree of ignorance not only from gun control advocates but also from gun owners and enthusiasts. I think the responsible ownership of firearms for self-defense by responsible adults can be a positive for society but not utterly without qualification and not to the extreme of those who would say, “An armed society is a polite society.” I would not care to live in a society where no means or right to self-protection is available; the dependence upon law enforcement to provide protection for individuals in inefficient and inefficacious.
Frustrated Wonderer, as a point of prinicple one does not relinquish one right in order to “obtain” another; as a rule such negotiation always ends up badly for the party making the trade. Whether you regard gun ownership as a right or some kind of ill-considered oversight of the drafters of the Constitution is a personal opinion (though it is clear from writings that they considered the issue and its eventual implications at length), but simply offering a trade is a bad idea.
Stranger
If the government wants to trade me a grand each for my guns, I’d take it. I’d rather have an airplane than guns right now. 
That’s true, but the '97 and '04 law changes didn’t actually ban all guns, just a couple of types (semi-auto centrefire rifles, mainly), and required guns to be licenced and registered.
Even in the UK it’s possible to own handguns, despite American’s protestations to the contrary.
I can certainly see the US introducing a licencing/registration system similar to the one used in Australia (and some US States) on a Federal level, but ultimately I think guns will be available for civilian ownership in all democratic countries forever.
Hell, in 200 years we might finally have some of those Laser Death Rays we were promised in The Future, resulting in guns being “rather quaint” or regarded in much the same way we regard Polearms- outdated but rather effective in their prime.
Something I’ve wondered is why criminals don’t use black powder handguns. Anyone can get them through the mail, and they proved for several decades to be adequate for purposes legitimate and nefarious.
There would be epic rap songs about how some rapper pulled out his gat, then pulled out out his ramrod, then the powder, and the percussion cap… it would be 7 stanzas in before any cops died.
And the Colt Dragoon would replace the Desert Eagle in popular culture as The Most Bling-Tastic Gun In The 'Hood.
Seriously though, Johnny raises a good point. Even in Australia, anyone can buy a pre-1901 blackpowder firearm. They’re not cheap, but they’re not unattainably expensive, either (around $1,000 for a decent example). Yet (fortunately) they’ve been conspicuously absent from armed hold-ups since the turn of the century.
That may change if some rapper starts talking about bustin’ caps with his Remington New Model Army or settling some scores with a Flintlock Duelling Pistol, but as Senor Beef says, that’s rather unlikely (and just as well, too!)
I can’t hear the name of that gun without it being in John Wayne’s voice from True Grit. ‘That’s a Colt’s Dragoon!’
:eek: Day-um! Ubertis are becoming a bit dear; somewhere around $300 - $350 last I checked. And I thought that was expensive!
Literally!
I probably should have been clearer- I was referring to original pre-1901 handguns, not modern reproductions. The modern reproductions are treated the same as any other modern firearm here and need to be licenced and registered.
The last time I checked, an Uberti Navy Colt repro was $500-$800 new here, but they’re about half that second-hand.
Here, black powder firearms are not classified as ‘firearms’; thus they can be bought by mail-order. It doesn’t matter if they’re original or reproduction.
A quick check just now shows an Uberti Colt 1851 Navy available for US$270, and Dragoons for US$340.
Yes, but by what values of the term “available”? Argent Towers vision of (a few) guns being technically available but tremendously difficult and expensive to obtain and keep sounds depressingly plausible.