I would also imagine that if you make a weapon too safe - then it either can cease to be a weapon, or by the time you remove the controls which turns it from "safe" to "unsafe" - you might already be captured/dead.
It's kinda like some initiatives out there to make it so that owners of guns have to store their guns unloaded in gun safes, with trigger locks, and ammo in separate locked containers.
In the (hopefully low probability) event that you need that weapon (perhaps a home invasion or such), by the time you are able to get to it and go through all the steps to make the gun usable - you're probably already dead.
Of course, I understand the logic and want behind such protections (to protect children, curious adults, to potentially keep the weapons out of thieves hands, etc) - but at the same time, I also understand and sympathize with the arguments against such controls.
There needs to be a balance between making such weapons safe, while also letting them become unsafe quickly when needed. In the case of military hardware, this balance also requires thoughtfulness about the destructive capability of the weapons involved; for instance, safety vs usability will be different for a rocket launcher, versus a nuclear missile.
Practically, how would that work for a toilet?
"I was a submarine toilet operator, first class, serving aboard the USS Deuce"
If you have to have a specialist flush a toilet for you, the design is bad.
It's not "just a toilet" anymore than a sub should work like a video game.
Designing fail safes for such things has to be a sort of balance between added complexity / options for failure, and safety.
In the military there are plenty of "don't touch that, let the person who knows how to do it touch it" and I suspect that is often the right design.