in the 1930s—the firearms examiner faces the formidable cognitive task of forming a mental pattern of identifying marks and features on bullet and cartridge case evidence. That pattern must then be matched to those from other exhibits.¹

The label “firearms identification” is another instance in which language can be a bit elusive. Although “the terms ‘identification’ and ‘identity’ are used constantly by practitioners” of criminalistics, or the forensic analysis of evidence, Kirk (1963:236) argued that the usage is an “unfortunate failure of nomenclature.” Rather than identification (as that term is commonly understood), Kirk argues that “criminalistics is the science of individualization:”

Thornton and Peterson (2002:8, 9) further differentiate between the two terms: “Individualization is the process of placing an object in a unit category which consists of a single unit. Individualization implies uniqueness; identification, strictly speaking, does not require it.” They also note the frequent use in forensic science of “identification” when “individualization” is meant, but recognized that “it is a constraint imposed by our language”; relying on the term “individualize” would likely lead to public confusion. “It should be appreciated, however, that the process of identification means one thing to the forensic scientist, and another thing to the botanist or the zoologist.” (See also Champod [2000:1077] on “individualization” versus “identification.”)

The phrasing of “individualization” as the act of associating an object