The thing about "smart technology" is that it can also prevent the firearm from discharging when needed.Some people always seem to think that everything has to be an either/or question or an absolute 100% answer to an issue.
The question here was about 'smart technology' for guns which control who can actually fire a weapon. It doesn't stop someone who can fire it from killing someone, it doesn't stop someone with a 'non-smart' weapon from killing someone, etc. etc. But it DOES stop that gun from being used by anyone other than the owner.
In other words, it REDUCES the chances of that gun being used to kill someone. It doesn't matter if 99 other guns can be used, it takes that one gun out of the equation. It is ONE step that can be taken to reduce gun crime. It is not the only step and it does not solve the problem 100% but it REDUCES it. Any step that can be taken that reduces gun crime has to be a good thing.
There is NO logical argument against doing it.
What good is a gun that you can't depend on?
The only people that think "smart guns" are a good idea are those who don't want anyone to have guns in the first place.
The logical reason against "smart guns" is it makes guns unreliable, and puts lives at risk.
I find it interesting that you state there is "no logical argument against it".
This is a typical problem today, people are unable to understand or comprehend that there could be a different point of view.
If you literally can't even appreciate that another point of view could logically exist, you're really unable to have a debate.
Myself I do understand that there are logically and likely well meaning arguments that oppose my opinion. I might not agree with various aspects or their conclusions, but I can recognize that others can have valid and logical opinions that differ from my own.
I think most honest differences in opinion simply come down to differential weighting of the various trade offs that are required for any position.