Arming teachers with smart pistols

News is coming out of California of the first so called “smart pistols” to hit store shelves in America.  These guns require a user to have a smart watch that has had a pin code entered before they will fire.  No watch and no pin and they won’t work.  There have been a few folks that have asked if these could be a viable option for arming teachers as part of POST and other similar programs.  I think the concept is intriguing but I have a few reservations:

  1. It’s new technology.  Will it work 100% of the time everytime?  Maybe, but we need to see it in the field for some time before putting it in a critical role like defending our students and teachers.  I would say the same for any new gun on the market, but it goes double for a new gun with a whole new operating approach.  This will work itself out over time – either it will prove to be reliable or not.
  2. It’s only a .22.  Not the caliber anyone should be defending themselves.
  3. The cost.  For the cost of the gun and the watch you could buy 2 or 3 standard duty pistols.  Safety has a price and if the first two issues resolved themselves then I am sure this one could be overcome, either by the market lowering the price through competition or schools deciding it was worth it for the added safety.
  4. The extra time required to deploy.  With a smart gun you have to have type in a code, which may be difficult under the stress of a shooting.  Like all things I am sure there could be training developed, but this would be new as well.
  5. The removal of the concealment.  If you have to have a watch on, then the students would pretty quickly figure out everyone with the watch has the gun.  Give everyone a watch?  Maybe, but that’s a pretty expensive decoy and then you are making people participate that may not want to.

What do you think?  Do smart guns solve some of the concerns with arming teachers or do they create more problems than they solve?

,
5 comments on “Arming teachers with smart pistols
  1. I think your concerns are justified in all areas especially 3,4, and 5.

    The watches give the carriers identity away, the need to enter a code under stress could be difficult and the cost will be an issue. I do agree that the .22 caliber isn’t “sufficient”.

    Again, my proposal of the lockbox probably would be a better fit. Concealment is not an issue, cost is comparable to this proposal and I know the fingerprint access to an appropriate handgun and the arm band will take seconds longer than CCDW, but it is seconds .

    Weighing the options will be interesting .

    • Let’s convert seconds into children lives. One-Mississippi (one child dead), two-Mississippi (another child dead), three-Mississippi (another child dead)…..just how many extra seconds (or dead children) is acceptable? But then it’s only seconds….or is it?

      History and the alternatives have been repeated time and again and continue to be repeated today. And while well meaning adults bicker over how they are going to protect their children from those who would murder them, they continue to herd them into a box everyday like lambs awaiting slaughter, while they go on about their lives and convince themselves the wolf won’t show up today. But when the wolf does show up and children die, the well meaning adults begin demanding more options (but make sure it’s not too effective).

      Meanwhile, back at the corral, the few Sheepdogs that are in charge of watching these precious lambs are told; don’t you dare bring your teeth to work. Your job is to bark at the wolf….yep, that’ll scare him off. But if it doesn’t, don’t worry, we’ll be sure to tell everyone what a hero you where that day and how brave you where without your teeth. “Sheepdogs have no business with teeth around a group of delicious….oops….I mean precious little lambs.” Says the wolf as he rubs his belly.

      Now I’ll admit, there are precious few Sheepdogs in the world, but the few that there are, are willing to do anything, up to and including loosening their life to protect a child. How selfish it is to deny them the proper tools to complete their task. Especially, when they are voluntarily willing to take from their own lives the time and expense to complete the training others require of them.

      Once again, all we have to do is look back at recorded history to see that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.

      One-Mississippi, two-Mississippi, three-Mississippi…..the clock is ticking….what will we do…..what will we do?

  2. Police officers, since they regularly physically interact with criminals, are more likely than any other group to have their guns snatched and used against them. They are the people most likely to benefit from “smart gun” technology. Yet every single bill that mandates the use of “smart guns” excludes police.

    What does that tell you?

  3. Ridiculous, for now anyway. It’s a very old idea. Some of the technology is as well. Something that you would depend on to help save lives needs to just work. It is very untested in the real world and no one would, should or could pay the price – to maybe secure a self-defense .22?? If a trained LEO won’t put faith in it I can’t imagine why civilian should.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: