Fingerprint Gun For Better Public Security

The illegal use of guns has become one of our major problems these days. It threatens public security worldwide. Fingerprint Gun integrates user-friendly fingerprint identification systems with an embedded memory chip to ensure the user is its legal owner. The memory chip is located at the upper end of the gun barrel. The indicator on the gun’s front sight attachment will turn to green when the fingerprint information is verified to be correct. It allows the user to shoot with the gun. The wrong fingerprint will turn the indicator to red and the gun can’t be used. Fingerprint Gun has been designed to control the use of private guns for better public security.

Designer : Sun Xiaotian

Fingerprint Gun

Fingerprint Gun

Fingerprint Gun

Fingerprint Gun



*Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

You might be interested in these posts:

63 thoughts on “Fingerprint Gun For Better Public Security

  1. Still, people can just find guns WITHOUT this device or simply MAKE their own improvised firearms. Plus, if you wish to kill someone but the only gun you know of has this device, then you could just use knives, rocks, baseball bats, hammers, shovels, axes, all types of blunt, club-like objects, arson, poison, arrows, razor blades, explosives, hatchets and (of course) punhing, kicking, biting, strangling and pushing your intented victim off a cliff or running them over with your car. Try putting a fingerprint ID on ALL THOSE. Still, this concept DOES rule out GUNS (even if it could be have theoretical consequences for the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution).

    • The advantage to having a thumbprint (aka signature) gun is that nobody can shoot you (or anybody else) with it if it is stolen from you or taken from you by force.

  2. There is no way I am relying on a fingerprint scanner for my personal defense in a situation where I would have to use my gun.

    This isn't even a good idea.

  3. There is no way I am relying on a fingerprint scanner for my personal defense in a situation where I would have to use my gun.

    This isn't even a good idea.

  4. There is no way I am relying on a fingerprint scanner for my personal defense in a situation where I would have to use my gun.

    This isn't even a good idea.

  5. There is no way I am relying on a fingerprint scanner for my personal defense in a situation where I would have to use my gun.

    This isn't even a good idea.

  6. There is no way I am relying on a fingerprint scanner for my personal defense in a situation where I would have to use my gun.

    This isn't even a good idea.

  7. There is no way I am relying on a fingerprint scanner for my personal defense in a situation where I would have to use my gun.

    This isn't even a good idea.

  8. I agree with the comments above, I've seen a gun made out of a heavy duty stapler and other stuff. The best defence against guns would be if no one made or had guns.

  9. I agree with the comments above, I've seen a gun made out of a heavy duty stapler and other stuff. The best defence against guns would be if no one made or had guns.

  10. I agree with the comments above, I've seen a gun made out of a heavy duty stapler and other stuff. The best defence against guns would be if no one made or had guns.

  11. I agree with the comments above, I've seen a gun made out of a heavy duty stapler and other stuff. The best defence against guns would be if no one made or had guns.

  12. I agree with the comments above, I've seen a gun made out of a heavy duty stapler and other stuff. The best defence against guns would be if no one made or had guns.

  13. I agree with the comments above, I've seen a gun made out of a heavy duty stapler and other stuff. The best defence against guns would be if no one made or had guns.

  14. I think the idea has a few merits in that a robber could not take the gun and use it. My problem would be if my finger print is registered in the gun's memory would that mean my wife could not use it to protect me during a home invasion? Can it memorize more than one person? What about a finger cut or burn damage or bandage, would it be able to recognize me? These ae the drawbacks I see. If it could recognize two people then I might consider it.

  15. I think the idea has a few merits in that a robber could not take the gun and use it. My problem would be if my finger print is registered in the gun's memory would that mean my wife could not use it to protect me during a home invasion? Can it memorize more than one person? What about a finger cut or burn damage or bandage, would it be able to recognize me? These ae the drawbacks I see. If it could recognize two people then I might consider it.

  16. I think the idea has a few merits in that a robber could not take the gun and use it. My problem would be if my finger print is registered in the gun's memory would that mean my wife could not use it to protect me during a home invasion? Can it memorize more than one person? What about a finger cut or burn damage or bandage, would it be able to recognize me? These ae the drawbacks I see. If it could recognize two people then I might consider it.

  17. I think the idea has a few merits in that a robber could not take the gun and use it. My problem would be if my finger print is registered in the gun's memory would that mean my wife could not use it to protect me during a home invasion? Can it memorize more than one person? What about a finger cut or burn damage or bandage, would it be able to recognize me? These ae the drawbacks I see. If it could recognize two people then I might consider it.

  18. I think the idea has a few merits in that a robber could not take the gun and use it. My problem would be if my finger print is registered in the gun's memory would that mean my wife could not use it to protect me during a home invasion? Can it memorize more than one person? What about a finger cut or burn damage or bandage, would it be able to recognize me? These ae the drawbacks I see. If it could recognize two people then I might consider it.

  19. I think the idea has a few merits in that a robber could not take the gun and use it. My problem would be if my finger print is registered in the gun's memory would that mean my wife could not use it to protect me during a home invasion? Can it memorize more than one person? What about a finger cut or burn damage or bandage, would it be able to recognize me? These ae the drawbacks I see. If it could recognize two people then I might consider it.

  20. The only people who could possibly think this is good idea would be a govt that doesn't want a population like the Americas to have firearms because America would then be easier to invade frm outside or control from within. (I the designer Chinese?…) Who doesn'thnk that a government that mandates such gun controls wouldn't also push for a remote disablement fuction as well? (again under the ruse of "enhanced" public safety). Come on Sheeple, wake up!

  21. The only people who could possibly think this is good idea would be a govt that doesn't want a population like the Americas to have firearms because America would then be easier to invade frm outside or control from within. (I the designer Chinese?…) Who doesn'thnk that a government that mandates such gun controls wouldn't also push for a remote disablement fuction as well? (again under the ruse of "enhanced" public safety). Come on Sheeple, wake up!

  22. The only people who could possibly think this is good idea would be a govt that doesn't want a population like the Americas to have firearms because America would then be easier to invade frm outside or control from within. (I the designer Chinese?…) Who doesn'thnk that a government that mandates such gun controls wouldn't also push for a remote disablement fuction as well? (again under the ruse of "enhanced" public safety). Come on Sheeple, wake up!

  23. The only people who could possibly think this is good idea would be a govt that doesn't want a population like the Americas to have firearms because America would then be easier to invade frm outside or control from within. (I the designer Chinese?…) Who doesn'thnk that a government that mandates such gun controls wouldn't also push for a remote disablement fuction as well? (again under the ruse of "enhanced" public safety). Come on Sheeple, wake up!

  24. The only people who could possibly think this is good idea would be a govt that doesn't want a population like the Americas to have firearms because America would then be easier to invade frm outside or control from within. (I the designer Chinese?…) Who doesn'thnk that a government that mandates such gun controls wouldn't also push for a remote disablement fuction as well? (again under the ruse of "enhanced" public safety). Come on Sheeple, wake up!

  25. The only people who could possibly think this is good idea would be a govt that doesn't want a population like the Americas to have firearms because America would then be easier to invade frm outside or control from within. (I the designer Chinese?…) Who doesn'thnk that a government that mandates such gun controls wouldn't also push for a remote disablement fuction as well? (again under the ruse of "enhanced" public safety). Come on Sheeple, wake up!

  26. This is a familar refrain repeated once again. The concept of a sensible, reliable firearm recognition system may be a good idea but it has never overcome all the hurdles. This latest iteration (certainly not a unique idea or attempt) is not the answer. Sucess in a gunfight relies on instaneous decision-making using large muscle memory; fine motor skills are nearly useless in high adrenaline situations. You might as well not have a gun. Get a pool cue, in close quarter combat it's a formidable weapon. Another alternative weapon is wasp spray; works as good or better than OC.

  27. This is a familar refrain repeated once again. The concept of a sensible, reliable firearm recognition system may be a good idea but it has never overcome all the hurdles. This latest iteration (certainly not a unique idea or attempt) is not the answer. Sucess in a gunfight relies on instaneous decision-making using large muscle memory; fine motor skills are nearly useless in high adrenaline situations. You might as well not have a gun. Get a pool cue, in close quarter combat it's a formidable weapon. Another alternative weapon is wasp spray; works as good or better than OC.

  28. This is a familar refrain repeated once again. The concept of a sensible, reliable firearm recognition system may be a good idea but it has never overcome all the hurdles. This latest iteration (certainly not a unique idea or attempt) is not the answer. Sucess in a gunfight relies on instaneous decision-making using large muscle memory; fine motor skills are nearly useless in high adrenaline situations. You might as well not have a gun. Get a pool cue, in close quarter combat it's a formidable weapon. Another alternative weapon is wasp spray; works as good or better than OC.

  29. This is a familar refrain repeated once again. The concept of a sensible, reliable firearm recognition system may be a good idea but it has never overcome all the hurdles. This latest iteration (certainly not a unique idea or attempt) is not the answer. Sucess in a gunfight relies on instaneous decision-making using large muscle memory; fine motor skills are nearly useless in high adrenaline situations. You might as well not have a gun. Get a pool cue, in close quarter combat it's a formidable weapon. Another alternative weapon is wasp spray; works as good or better than OC.

  30. This is a familar refrain repeated once again. The concept of a sensible, reliable firearm recognition system may be a good idea but it has never overcome all the hurdles. This latest iteration (certainly not a unique idea or attempt) is not the answer. Sucess in a gunfight relies on instaneous decision-making using large muscle memory; fine motor skills are nearly useless in high adrenaline situations. You might as well not have a gun. Get a pool cue, in close quarter combat it's a formidable weapon. Another alternative weapon is wasp spray; works as good or better than OC.

  31. This is a familar refrain repeated once again. The concept of a sensible, reliable firearm recognition system may be a good idea but it has never overcome all the hurdles. This latest iteration (certainly not a unique idea or attempt) is not the answer. Sucess in a gunfight relies on instaneous decision-making using large muscle memory; fine motor skills are nearly useless in high adrenaline situations. You might as well not have a gun. Get a pool cue, in close quarter combat it's a formidable weapon. Another alternative weapon is wasp spray; works as good or better than OC.

  32. I think this could turn "False Rejection Rate" into "Owner Mortality Rate"… I'm not a fan of this type of solution. If you're nervous or have other issues, your normal finger will no longer be normal… that could result in a deadly FRR incident.

  33. I think this could turn "False Rejection Rate" into "Owner Mortality Rate"… I'm not a fan of this type of solution. If you're nervous or have other issues, your normal finger will no longer be normal… that could result in a deadly FRR incident.

  34. I think this could turn "False Rejection Rate" into "Owner Mortality Rate"… I'm not a fan of this type of solution. If you're nervous or have other issues, your normal finger will no longer be normal… that could result in a deadly FRR incident.

  35. I think this could turn "False Rejection Rate" into "Owner Mortality Rate"… I'm not a fan of this type of solution. If you're nervous or have other issues, your normal finger will no longer be normal… that could result in a deadly FRR incident.

  36. I think this could turn "False Rejection Rate" into "Owner Mortality Rate"… I'm not a fan of this type of solution. If you're nervous or have other issues, your normal finger will no longer be normal… that could result in a deadly FRR incident.

  37. I think this could turn "False Rejection Rate" into "Owner Mortality Rate"… I'm not a fan of this type of solution. If you're nervous or have other issues, your normal finger will no longer be normal… that could result in a deadly FRR incident.

  38. Even if EVERY GUN in ( lets say ) the US was fitted with one of these, wouldn't this just military-grade weapons as being the only non-improvised guns without fingerprint ID's?

    Bob- "Gee, Tom, now we can't steal those hunting rifles from wal-mart"
    Tom-" No worries, Bob, we can always steal an M2 50 cal. heavy machine gun from that National Guard base up the road."

  39. Even if EVERY GUN in ( lets say ) the US was fitted with one of these, wouldn't this just military-grade weapons as being the only non-improvised guns without fingerprint ID's?

    Bob- "Gee, Tom, now we can't steal those hunting rifles from wal-mart"
    Tom-" No worries, Bob, we can always steal an M2 50 cal. heavy machine gun from that National Guard base up the road."

  40. Even if EVERY GUN in ( lets say ) the US was fitted with one of these, wouldn't this just military-grade weapons as being the only non-improvised guns without fingerprint ID's?

    Bob- "Gee, Tom, now we can't steal those hunting rifles from wal-mart"
    Tom-" No worries, Bob, we can always steal an M2 50 cal. heavy machine gun from that National Guard base up the road."

  41. Even if EVERY GUN in ( lets say ) the US was fitted with one of these, wouldn't this just military-grade weapons as being the only non-improvised guns without fingerprint ID's?

    Bob- "Gee, Tom, now we can't steal those hunting rifles from wal-mart"
    Tom-" No worries, Bob, we can always steal an M2 50 cal. heavy machine gun from that National Guard base up the road."

  42. Even if EVERY GUN in ( lets say ) the US was fitted with one of these, wouldn't this just military-grade weapons as being the only non-improvised guns without fingerprint ID's?

    Bob- "Gee, Tom, now we can't steal those hunting rifles from wal-mart"
    Tom-" No worries, Bob, we can always steal an M2 50 cal. heavy machine gun from that National Guard base up the road."

  43. Even if EVERY GUN in ( lets say ) the US was fitted with one of these, wouldn't this just military-grade weapons as being the only non-improvised guns without fingerprint ID's?

    Bob- "Gee, Tom, now we can't steal those hunting rifles from wal-mart"
    Tom-" No worries, Bob, we can always steal an M2 50 cal. heavy machine gun from that National Guard base up the road."

  44. The 2nd amendment was written in a day and age when having a gun was a necessity. There was a revolution, there were Indian battles, and the majority of people still actually hunted for their own food.

    None of this is the case in 2010.

    In 1876 people really HAD to own a gun to survive.
    In 2010, most Americans get through life every single day without needing one.

    I know this will offend a whole bunch of people, but the 2nd amendment really is an outdated concept. We do not need guns to survive anymore. There are no Indian attacks as we cross Kansas. We are not battling another country's Army on our soil, and our citizens are not expected to use their own weaponry to fight battles here or elsewhere. The military provides them when needed. Most Americans no longer hunt for their food. Yes, there are still people that hunt, but hunting rifles have never been a target for anyone that supports gun control.
    No one walks in to a 7-Eleven with a hunting rifle and tries to hold it up.

    Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent that it would grow and change with our country and our citizens over the years.
    Before you jump to defend the 2nd Amendment, ask yourself what exactly it is that you are defending….and why.
    I don't know if this fingerprint gun would help or not, but anything we can do to limit the accessibility of handguns getting in to the hands of people that will use them to hurt someone, the better.

    Oh, and as far as the "using a gun for defense" excuse…the fact is, statistically in the U.S., more people are hurt by their own gun (or a family member or friend is hurt), then those that are able to actually ward off an intruder or attacker with one. This is a statistical fact.
    Most people do not react like a professional in a dangerous situation. They follow basic human nature, which is to HIDE, RUN, and GET HELP. Very very few people that are not professionally trained actually utilize a gun, whether they own one or not, to save people in a civilian situation.

  45. The 2nd amendment was written in a day and age when having a gun was a necessity. There was a revolution, there were Indian battles, and the majority of people still actually hunted for their own food.

    None of this is the case in 2010.

    In 1876 people really HAD to own a gun to survive.
    In 2010, most Americans get through life every single day without needing one.

    I know this will offend a whole bunch of people, but the 2nd amendment really is an outdated concept. We do not need guns to survive anymore. There are no Indian attacks as we cross Kansas. We are not battling another country's Army on our soil, and our citizens are not expected to use their own weaponry to fight battles here or elsewhere. The military provides them when needed. Most Americans no longer hunt for their food. Yes, there are still people that hunt, but hunting rifles have never been a target for anyone that supports gun control.
    No one walks in to a 7-Eleven with a hunting rifle and tries to hold it up.

    Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent that it would grow and change with our country and our citizens over the years.
    Before you jump to defend the 2nd Amendment, ask yourself what exactly it is that you are defending….and why.
    I don't know if this fingerprint gun would help or not, but anything we can do to limit the accessibility of handguns getting in to the hands of people that will use them to hurt someone, the better.

    Oh, and as far as the "using a gun for defense" excuse…the fact is, statistically in the U.S., more people are hurt by their own gun (or a family member or friend is hurt), then those that are able to actually ward off an intruder or attacker with one. This is a statistical fact.
    Most people do not react like a professional in a dangerous situation. They follow basic human nature, which is to HIDE, RUN, and GET HELP. Very very few people that are not professionally trained actually utilize a gun, whether they own one or not, to save people in a civilian situation.

  46. The 2nd amendment was written in a day and age when having a gun was a necessity. There was a revolution, there were Indian battles, and the majority of people still actually hunted for their own food.

    None of this is the case in 2010.

    In 1876 people really HAD to own a gun to survive.
    In 2010, most Americans get through life every single day without needing one.

    I know this will offend a whole bunch of people, but the 2nd amendment really is an outdated concept. We do not need guns to survive anymore. There are no Indian attacks as we cross Kansas. We are not battling another country's Army on our soil, and our citizens are not expected to use their own weaponry to fight battles here or elsewhere. The military provides them when needed. Most Americans no longer hunt for their food. Yes, there are still people that hunt, but hunting rifles have never been a target for anyone that supports gun control.
    No one walks in to a 7-Eleven with a hunting rifle and tries to hold it up.

    Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent that it would grow and change with our country and our citizens over the years.
    Before you jump to defend the 2nd Amendment, ask yourself what exactly it is that you are defending….and why.
    I don't know if this fingerprint gun would help or not, but anything we can do to limit the accessibility of handguns getting in to the hands of people that will use them to hurt someone, the better.

    Oh, and as far as the "using a gun for defense" excuse…the fact is, statistically in the U.S., more people are hurt by their own gun (or a family member or friend is hurt), then those that are able to actually ward off an intruder or attacker with one. This is a statistical fact.
    Most people do not react like a professional in a dangerous situation. They follow basic human nature, which is to HIDE, RUN, and GET HELP. Very very few people that are not professionally trained actually utilize a gun, whether they own one or not, to save people in a civilian situation.

  47. The 2nd amendment was written in a day and age when having a gun was a necessity. There was a revolution, there were Indian battles, and the majority of people still actually hunted for their own food.

    None of this is the case in 2010.

    In 1876 people really HAD to own a gun to survive.
    In 2010, most Americans get through life every single day without needing one.

    I know this will offend a whole bunch of people, but the 2nd amendment really is an outdated concept. We do not need guns to survive anymore. There are no Indian attacks as we cross Kansas. We are not battling another country's Army on our soil, and our citizens are not expected to use their own weaponry to fight battles here or elsewhere. The military provides them when needed. Most Americans no longer hunt for their food. Yes, there are still people that hunt, but hunting rifles have never been a target for anyone that supports gun control.
    No one walks in to a 7-Eleven with a hunting rifle and tries to hold it up.

    Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent that it would grow and change with our country and our citizens over the years.
    Before you jump to defend the 2nd Amendment, ask yourself what exactly it is that you are defending….and why.
    I don't know if this fingerprint gun would help or not, but anything we can do to limit the accessibility of handguns getting in to the hands of people that will use them to hurt someone, the better.

    Oh, and as far as the "using a gun for defense" excuse…the fact is, statistically in the U.S., more people are hurt by their own gun (or a family member or friend is hurt), then those that are able to actually ward off an intruder or attacker with one. This is a statistical fact.
    Most people do not react like a professional in a dangerous situation. They follow basic human nature, which is to HIDE, RUN, and GET HELP. Very very few people that are not professionally trained actually utilize a gun, whether they own one or not, to save people in a civilian situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.