People who honestly believe that smart guns are the answer apparently have different comprehension of the word “Smart”. Even if the technology were perfect, with power supplied by unicorn hair that never died and electronics that were made out of Adamantium and would never break and the software written by the best experts in the world with 0 defects and thus the device would work 100% of the time in 100% of all situations, there’s still the pesky fact that guns are nothing more than a tube, sealed at one end.
Rocket science comes into play, but it’s not required.
The problem with these approaches is that they are all just a veneer for gun confiscation. There are so many if’s in line to make them unworkable as it is - if it can be made to never need power and if it could be made reliable and if the technology could, via fingerprint recognition and sweat sampling determine if you are in an agitated state while the area-scan determined there was no threat, and if, and if, and if, and if, to infinity and beyond – that it’s easy to shoot down from a logical level, but instinctively people react to “Well, if there could be a better gun that would stop this, why not?” by nodding their heads, bleating, and going back to eating the lovely, lovely fescue.
The banners get their foot in the door by getting people to accept that there are times when confiscation makes sense, even if they have to do it by selling them imaginary jars of Leprechaun spunk. Then, via the ancient tactic of bait and switch, they swap the jar of goo with packets of fairy farts and continue their crusade to ban weapons outright.
‘Cept for their body guards. They don’t have to worry about spells and wands, they get to keep dumb guns.
The key thing is this – will our military accept the technology? If not, then why should civilians?