There are, indeed, a couple of ways of looking at things related to guns. First is to look solely at gun rights (or lack thereof) and to become depressed. Mr. Ross has correctly pointed out that this should not be the only point of view. The second way is to look only at what is available for purchase (assuming that your local jurisdiction allows it, or that you can afford it after misc. gov't intrusions into the supply side of the supply-demand equation), information available, etc. As with gun rights, tunnel-vision in this regard is also incorrect.
From the latter perspective, we are clearly better off. There are a wealth of choices in handguns, rifles and shotguns that just weren't there 70, 40 or 20 years ago. And, yes, concealed carry was never as widespread since about 1900 as it is now. Further, there is a wealth of information out there on guns, whether it be monthly/quarter publications, books, internet sites describing the manufacture or burying of arms for the "inevitable SHTF" episode in the future, etc. BUT ...
IMHO it matters little to most people what is available, if those goods are either outlawed now for them (e.g. >15 round magazines in NJ), or very possibly will (given current trends) someday be outlawed ("sniper" rifles, .50s, "assault" weapons, etc. - whatever Feinstein, Schumer, Hitlery, Sarah Brady, etc. can think of). Yes, we have more stuff in our gunsafes, closets, waistbands, gardens, etc. than ever before - but the slow and inexorable creep of gun bans throughout the country tends to depress those of us who follow such things. Further, the gun culture, as Mr. Ross so eloquently described it in Unintended Consequences, is dying a slow death due to the constant anti-gun diatribes of the media and the schools. Finally, while it is great to be able to carry concealed, one must (outside of Vermont and Alaska, two of the lowest population states) get a license and be on a list. If a gun confiscation scenario ever unfolds, guess who "they" will start with?
Unless John Ross is thinking of some scenario like he put forth in his book, then ultimately it doesn't matter if some manufacturer can make a 20mm recoil-less handgun that can't miss its target because of some super advanced targeting system, weighs 10-ounces and costs $5.00 - if it is illegal to buy or own such a device, it simply doesn't matter.
I know that Mr. Ross is simply trying to get everyone in the pro-gun camp to look at the bright side, but we should always remember the dark side - the legal climate regarding guns is, at best, uncertain. I dread the day when we get another Dem in the White House with control over both houses of Congress - you can kiss your gun rights good bye, forever (unless there's a 2nd revolution or a 2nd Civil War, and no sane person wants one of those).
By the way, kudos to Mr. Ross for his book. I found it very entertaining and very informative. I hope that lots of people in government found a need for Imodium and/or Nytol after reading it - and I'm sure that this was exactly Ross' intention in writing it (besides making a few bucks, and nothing is wrong with that). Perhaps books like his (and another one, Enemies Foreign and Domestic by Matt Bracken is due out soon), other information published over the years and/or available over the Internet, and the sheer number of gunowners and guns (perhaps 85-90 million and 250 million +, respectively) will preclude the possibility of a SHTF scenario. I certainly hope so.
