The old argument from those who insist on, for example, the US citizens’ right to carry a gun for the defence of themselves or others in need sounds something like this:
“It’s not the gun that kills people – it’s the one pulling the trigger.”

smart gun
Of course, to a large extent this is true, but (as I have written before) it would be better to have no guns in the first place. Long ago, for example, the UK drastically reduced rights to own a gun. Admittedly, the UK was never like Texas and the vast majority of gun owners had their weapons only for hunting, sport shooting or pest control – not for self defence. Gun deaths in the UK are some of the lowest in the world. In contrast, Finland hosts an amazing 1.9 million privately-held weapons, and has a population of only five million people, but they are not for self-defence either – they are for hunting and sport shooting. But, gun deaths are uncomfortably high, suicide being the major problem, followed by homicide. Guns can be misuse, and they are much easier to kill someone with than a knife or a hammer – you don’t have to get so close.

My point here is that even the most responsible gun owner just might lose control if faced with, for example, depression or marital infidelity. After a few drinks, the gun in the cupboard just might seem like a simple solution to the problem of the moment. Or, of course, a neighbour or family member just might know where the gun is kept and (as most Finnish men have been in the military) just how to use it. The gun in the picture above is a ‘smart gun’, and can only be fired if the registered owner is holding it. It remembers their palm print. This is a great step forward, and might be improved further if it knew that the person wielding it was drunk!