There has been quite a bit of talk over last several years about so called ballistic fingerprints. Perhaps a bit of background would be of use here, as some of the people reading this may not be totally familiar with this concept. When a firearm is manufactured, the tooling that is used to make it leaves small scratches in the metal. Because the tooling is changed fairly often, and gets worn down a little from part to part, these marks are considered to be unique; like human fingerprints. When you fire a weapon, those marks are left in both the bullet and the spent casing. Take a good look at a fired casing. Look very closely, perhaps under a magnifying glass. See those little scratches left on the sides and base of the case? Those are the 'fingerprints'. It has long been a part of police forensics to use the bullets and spent casings taken from a crime scene as evidence. When a criminal is apprehended, any firearms found in his possession are fired, and the bullets and cases are then compared to see if the machining marks left on the cases of the firearm in his possession match the marks on the crime scene casings. This evidence, circumstantial though it may be, is very damning in a court of law. This brings us to the new proposals for ballistic fingerprinting. The basic idea is to take a firearm and shoot it. The bullet and spent case are retained and digitally recorded by some law enforcement agency and are linked to the weapon through a registration process. Then when somebody commits a crime with a firearm, the 'fingerprints' that are left on any casings or bullets at the crime scene would then presumably be compared with the computerized database of fingerprints, and the offending firearm can then be traced. I myself find it as another baby step to gun confiscation!Shotguns has no fingerprinting -so what's the point? What's your thoughts on this issue?