“A new online survey of over 400 law enforcement professionals from coast to coast showed a surprisingly high level of interest in firearms that can only be operated by the authorized user (i.e. smart guns),” policeone.com reports. “Respondents consisted of law enforcement professionals from King County, Washington Sheriffs Office, Seattle City Police as well as the Montgomery County, MD police department.” As our man Foghorn, formerly of the DHS, taught me . . .
“Opt-in” online surveys have an inherent bias; survey takers should choose respondents from a suitably representative sample distributed across the country. Clued-in members of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia will notice that the majority of the “law enforcement professionals” in this study are employed in areas known for their unconstitutional gun control regimes. That’s assuming that these are actual law enforcement professionals who answered the online survey, since verifying credentials for the responses is a nearly impossible task.
And there’s the question of questions. What are they? How a question’s worded often determines the response it elicits. What does police “interest” in “smart guns” actually mean?
I’m “interested” in “smart guns.” But you won’t catch me carrying one — unless it’s on our readers’ behalf. (And even then with an analog backup gun.) Nick’s also “interested” in “smart guns” — interested in seeing what it takes to break them. Maybe cops are “interested” in making sure they never have to carry one.
The policeone.com article doesn’t provide a link to the study to check the questions’ exact wording. Hell, it doesn’t even identify who did the study. But the LEO-oriented website certainly “sells” the survey’s supposedly pro-“smart gun” results.
Some 58 percent of law enforcement professionals expressed some degree of interest in smart guns once they were proven reliable, with half of that number (i.e. 29 percent indicating very strong/extreme interest)
According to King County Sheriff John Urquhart whose department made up a significant part of the survey: “the results showed that a significant majority of metro police are open to the idea of smart guns providing they are rigorously tested. I see this as very good news given that user authorized firearms can help protect our officers from the danger of gun grabs as well as the criminal activity involving the hundreds of thousands of firearms stolen annually by criminal suspects”.
The survey showed that gun grabs are a primary concern of almost all in law enforcement with 84 percent of all respondents including some degree of concern and some 27 percent having experienced an actual gun grab event first hand.
OK then! If the police want “smart guns” to protect against gun grabs, I say let them have “smart guns.” But do they? Do they really? “PoliceOne comments can only be accessed by verified law enforcement professionals.” If one of our LEO readers could check that out for us and post their findings below, I’d be most appreciative.