To take your example- did they mandate all that technology the second someone said "look I've created a working prototype"? No, there was testing, real world trials, etc...How should this be any different with a firearm? It shouldn't be, but it is. We are told "look see, someone made an RFID gun, lets mandate it on all weapons!" I'm willing to listen, but I want to know what testing has been done, what failures the device has undergone. The most I've seen was one article which the manufacturer said "it shot 500 rounds with no issue"- which is hardly enough of a test to deem such a device reliable.

Also, your comparison to automotives in incorrect as well. A ducati motorcyle, like many modern vehicles, has intricate electronic components that are necessary for the vehicle to function. Today's cars cannot run without their electronic components. A gun on the other hand, has no electronic components (except accessories). The only electronic component in the smart gun would be device itself- which means removing it and replacing it with its mechanical counterpart would be simple. I say this because there are only certain parts you can replace with anything electronic- really only the trigger mechanism. Trigger mechanisms are not hard to replace, and on modern weapons can be done in less than 5 minutes. The parts are no more than springs.

Again the reliability issue- today's firearms are extremely reliable mainly because of the simplicity of their design. Can this device offer the same reliability? Logically no because it makes the device more complex while not offering an operation advantage. It just adds another thing that can possibly go wrong.

All those things you mentioned were proven reliable in real world scenarios before they were incorporated. How many real-world scenarios have smart guns gone through?