Theoretical Gun Control: DNA Tagging


Certified Shitlord
If you have seen District 9 then you know what I'm talking about.

Would you be okay with a gun control system that keeps the firearm locked (meaning it can't fire or load) unless its owner is holding it?

I think it's not such a stretch compared to the technology we have available today and I think it's a pretty simple and clever idea to keep people from abusing guns. Say each gun is required by law to have this lock system and you have to register with your DNA (or finger print, let's not get too scary here!) before purchase. Now that you have a profile, the gun will only be useful in the owners' hands because only they possess the fingerprint/genetic material the gun recognizes as its masters'.



Registered Member
It seems like it would make guns more expensive by some large multiplier. Which means unless it was government subsidized, the "pro gun" crowd would generally be against it.

As far as finger print analysis, I've always wondered what happens if you get a scar on your finger(s). Also, there's the problem of if you need to use it quickly for legitimate reasons, but the fingerprint scanner only gets a partial print and doesn't allow it.

I would guess that most problems with guns don't happen because someone else got their hands on a legitimately owned gun. I see no reason to believe that criminals would bother using that tech.

Also, what do you do about the thousands (if not millions) of guns that are already out there that don't have that security device?


Registered Member
I think they also had this technology in the Judge Dredd movie of the 90s.

It sounds good in theory--in theory. I think there would have to be a lot of work put into it, though.

It kind of scares me--putting a computer on a gun, that is. What happens when the failsafes do not work? What happens when the battery dies? The scar issue is funny, too. I guess one would have to reprogram it. Retrograding old guns is tricky, and it would be more expensive, but I see this more like a niche market, really. A father or mother realizes that getting a "smart gun" might be a good way to ensure, as a last-step measure, that their son or daughter does not shoot anyone by mistake (or on purpose). I think there are times, also, where you really want someone to be able to shoot the gun whom does not own it--unless you can load multiple "user account" fingerprints on it. Suppose a cop's partner is shot and he/she needs to use the other cop's gun to shoot the attacker (many more hypotheticals just like this one) but cannot because it is not registered to him/her.

I cannot see this as a wide-spread market--and really it just scares me to put more technology into guns.

(P.S. I sure as hell hope Toyota does not decide to build pistols)
Last edited:


I am Heavy Weapons Guy
In theory it would be a good idea.

Wade brings up a good point where it would make guns way more expensive. Also It would have to allow a few people, not just one owner, to shoot the gun. And in any rare event where you actually need to use your gun for self defense it is just one more thing to malfunction.

It kind of scares me--putting a computer on a gun
I think that some advanced military sniper rifles already have computers on them.


Registered Member
I think that some advanced military sniper rifles already have computers on them.
Oh totally, I know--I should have said, "in the hands of untrained citizens." :lol: If there were mandatory training session and capability tests to pass, then it might be a little more comfortable to me. I suppose though that this brings up a lot of heat from the 2nd amendment when arguing restrictions etc...


Registered Member
I think the unnecessary added cost would be a type of gun control. Take a $500 gun add a $1500 "safety" who could afford that? I also think $1500 would be a low estimate, tritium (a type of glow in the dark) sights cost $100 - $150 + installation.