The arguments against smart tech are incomplete (Score 4, Insightful)

I'm seeing two main arguments put forward from those who are against smart tech: weapon reliability and the 2nd amendment. To the first, it is insufficient to argue that a weapon is not worth having if there is some (additional) probability of the weapon failing due to the tech. One major safety concern is children getting their hands on guns. Some argue that safes are a sufficient solution but if one truly wants a gun as a means of defense, I doubt keeping it locked away will allow it to provide much protection and reflecting that children do get their hands on them. Now, suppose the probability a child gets their hands on a loaded weapon resulting in death is 10% and the probability of the tech causes the gun to fail when needed for defense is 1%, then the benefits of the tech outweigh the cost. These numbers are arbitrary to make the point that an increased chance of failure is only part of the equation. It's like saying sometimes an airbag deploys in such a way as to cause extreme harm to the driver that otherwise wouldn't happen so we should remove all airbags from cars. Relatedly I would guess that there are many different kinds of smart tech incorporating very different levels of functionality and control of the weapon meaning that the rate of failure will also vary. Product variety is good and there will be those who want more tech, those that want some, but less, and those that do not want any. The second concern is about the 2nd amendment but that's why we have the courts. If smart tech were to be mandated and it is indeed unconstitutional, as many argue, then guess what, the mandate will not be allowed and there is nothing to be worried about. I'm guessing NJ's law has not been tested because nobody has standing yet as there is no smart tech to mandate. Unfortunately, the law in NJ is still in place because it allows for this kind of divisiveness against developing the tech in the first place.