Re: Lock Step (12/23)
Guns don't plink beer cans, people do
Excellent article re: New Jersey and its "gun ban" which effectively is what their new law does. Their will be no advantages to "personalized weapons" only drawbacks which will make them unpopular. If you want to stop children from committing suicide not only with guns, but any other means, raise them correctly. Short of that, if you are concerned about children and guns, do the smart thing - in addition to locking your guns up, educate your children about guns. My wife and I have raised two children and I own several guns, which have never been locked up. There has never been a need to do so. My children were educated at a young age as to what guns are and the danger they present when handled incorrectly. I must have been successful, my 15 year old son who likes to hunt and "plink beer cans" with me is more conscious of gun safety than me. In the final analysis, the New Jersey law has nothing to do with gun safety, and everything to do with contravening the United States Constitution. They seem to be getting pretty good at that as the recent election there shows, by my reckoning.
Shot down in the marketplace
I probably won't be the only one, but I have to point out a flaw in your article "Lock Step". You cite a number of smart gun technologies not ready for the marketplace, including magnetic rings. A company called Tarnhelm www.tarnhelm.com has been converting revolvers into smart guns, which require the presence of magnetic rings, for several years. I have never had the opportunity to try one, but I understand they were popular at one time for law enforcement officials involved in the transport of high risk prisoners. I think it is safe to say that smart guns of this sort occupy a very small niche in the marketplace.
The present availability of this smart gun technology opens an interesting line of argument. Smart gun technology is not all Buck Rogers nonsense, but is already available and has been largely rejected by the marketplace. The system I refer to here is similar in cost to the high-tech proposal from Colt and probably infinitely more reliable, yet it has never caught on to any great extent.
Re: Reason Express (12/17)
Let's see now. Kissinger is not willing to volunteer without pay for a political shit detail if it means that he must name his clients and thus expose them to the tender scrutiny of the "loyal opposition." Sounds reasonable to me. The real problem is that there does not seem to be a way for legitimate questions, such as conflict of interest, to be handled without making stuff public that is not the public's business.
Secrecy about anything? Gosh, golly. Must be doing something bad.
Re: Unreel Claims (12/16)