This is untrue. "Gluten-Free" is being marketed as health food. I think it's a good idea to have a label on food with Gluten, so that those with a problem can avoid food that has gluten. However, most people who are obsessed with Gluten free believe that gluten is the cause of all sorts of problems in everyone, whereas the real problem is fairly rare. I've been lectured several times by the "Gluten-Free Obsessed" that I'm killing myself by eating bread. It's an epidemic of ignorance. I think the real problem though is that Gluten Free is being marketed as health food (and labeled and sold as such) when in fact, if you aren't gluten intolerant or have celiac disease, gluten free does absolutely nothing healthy for you.

...or does this story seem to show up on /. about twice a year?

...Costas that the gun, in fact, wasn't the murderer. And that it was actually football that lead to these two deaths. The gun was just the instrument.

I'd like to see you make a 9mm zip gun out of an ABS pipe, a nail and a rubber band, film it, and put it on youtube. You won't do that because you are smart enough to know that ABS plastic isn't even close to strong enough to contain the explosion of the powder in the round. The brass casing isn't strong enough. You need a steel barrel. Linked is a picture of the barrel of a sub-compact Glock. That will be more than sufficient to set off any security grade metal detector.

http://www.mouseguns.com/glockall/barrel.jpg

And for fun, here's a link to a video of a 9mm round exploding in the breech of a Berreta 92 (also known as the M9 in the military), the current service pistol of the Army (not sure about other branches, Coast Guard issues Sig Sauer 229, I know). In other words, the brass needs to have some thing sufficient to contain it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-EvhL3k-1o

That big metal block on the barrel linked above is where the explosion actually takes place. Replace that with plastic...and you have what is commonly known as a bomb.

When the first auto-loading pistols were being brought to market around the turn of the century (think Luger, or 1911) they were commonly called Automatic Pistols. Even though they would only fire once per pull of the trigger (semi-automatic). Today, there are a few people that still use this terminology, but most people just say Pistol (as most pistols are semi-auto anymore), or auto-loading pistol (as opposed to a revolver which isn't auto-loading). Today, when most people say automatic, they mean, the gun will fire as long as your finger is pressing the trigger, and there's ammo to be loaded. An automatic rifle, as mentioned in the Wired article, almost certainly refers to a machine gun.

Except that it's impossible to make a gun (even with a 3D printer) without metal parts. At the very least, the barrel, firing pin, bolt, and recoil springs (semi-auto) will have to be metal. These parts are readily available from gun stores and online. The printer is used to make the frame. Look at the Glock. People call it "plastic" but there is more metal in it than plastic. The slide is metal, the fire control mechanism is all metal, the barrel is metal, the recoil spring is metal. With the exception of maybe parts of the fire control mechanism (certainly not the stiker/firing pin) the gun would cease to function without metal. If you fire a round through a plastic barrel, you'll learn quickly the physics of a mini pipe bomb. In other words, what the guy in the article was doing was 100% legal.

Actually, you're wrong. As long as the gun you're building, you won't be selling/transferring, and it doesn't fall under the National Firearms Act (NFA). That would mean rifles need > 16in barrel, shotguns need >18in barrel, no fully automatic, and no suppressor. And, if you file Form 1 and buy a $200 tax stamp, you can build an NFA firearm also (but that can be difficult, depending on jurisdiction and the like). State laws are a different story, of course, but the Feds don't care.

Unfortunately, what he was making wasn't illicit...according to the Feds anyway. On the other hand, the printer being leased means they can repossess it for any reason they want. So, basically...non-news. "Hey guys, the car company repossessed my friends car for putting a Glock sticker on the window!"

Wow, common sense. :)

If a product is used in a way it isn't designed (not bolting these types of safe to the floor, in this case) it's the consumers fault, not the producer. This goes for any product. Glue has a warning, not to inhale fumes. It's not the glue companies fault if you die inhaling the fumes. This is why people should learn to follow instructions. :)

Not news, trigger locks are shit. They give parents a false sense of security, and get them to believe that as long as the lock is on there, I don't need to get my kids socialized to guns. Check youtube, there's several videos that show firearms being fired with a trigger lock on them. The best way to keep kids from hurting themselves with firearms is keep them out of their reach when they're young, and when they're a bit older and more responsible (5 or 6, could be more or even less depending on the maturity of the child) educate them about guns, and don't make them a forbidden fruit.

I agree, this isn't a case of "It's a dangerous product!" It's a case of parents who don't read warnings and let their kids have access to something that clearly isn't safe for them. According to a quick Google search in 2002, over 1 million children were hospitalized due to accidental poisoning, and in 2001, 96 were killed as a result. Following the lead of the Buckyball ban, let's ban all substances that can poison a child! http://www.preventinjury.org/PDFs/POISONING.pdf

Last I checked, the 2nd amendment doesn't say:

"...and the right of the people to keep and play with Buckyballs shall not be infringed."

Banning the sales of ammo would be unconstitutional, regardless of any statistic. Banning of Buckballs (not that I agree) would be within the dubiously used "Commerce Clause"

Here's a thought. Think of the last 10-15 years of (non-military) mass murders in the US and abroad. Do you know what most have in common? They occurred in places where guns were not allowed. Why do you think that is? Easy, the people who commit these murders might be crazy, but they aren't stupid. They go where they know they will meet the least resistance. And don't use Ft. Hood or McChord AFB as examples. Soldiers typically aren't allowed to carry weapons while on base except under certain circumstances. Typically the only people armed on military bases are the MPs, which work basically like a civilian police force.

Why do you think cities with the most strict gun laws typically have the highest violent crime rates?

One of my favorite things to say to people who point to mass murders as "proof" we need gun control: You'll never see a mass shooting at a gun show.

The difference between the circumstances here is huge. One is a crazy person trying to get as many kills as possible. The other are people trying to protect something from what they see as an unwanted invader imposing their will. You put anyone in a situation like that, and they'll fight no matter what the odds.

Wait, wait, wait...

Lucky? What do you mean by lucky? That you're just going to fire blindly in the general direction of the commotion and hope that one round hits? How many innocents, in front, beside, and behind (walls too!) do you think you might hit in the process? 4 LAWS (yes, laws) of gun safety:

1. Guns are always loaded (even when you know it isn't, it's still loaded)
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you aren't willing to destroy (including innocents in front, beside and behind your target)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
and the one most pertinent to your asinine idea...
4. Know your target, and what's beyond.

Your kind of thinking is what gives gun owners a bad name. The name of the game is responsibility. If you cannot for sure make out the bad guy in your sights, DO NOT FIRE.

A movie theater in the thick of an action scene is probably one of the worst places to find yourself in a defensive shooting situation. I do agree that not knowing who is or isn't armed is a great deterrent, but blind firing is just stupid. Oh, and if you see me, and you're a crazy killer type person, it'd be best if you didn't open fire near me. Just a tip if you enjoy life. :)

Reading Comprehension > You He said nothing about being threatened. He said being attacked. Its fucktards like you, that can twist every last detail without an objective view that have Zimmerman convicted before he stands trial in front of an impartial jury of his peers. Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? Oh right, it was gone the day the news realized sensational stories sell ads. If its found that Zimmerman was the original aggressor, then he deserves whatever the law can throw at him. But we don't know everything that happened, so quit listening to your emotions, look at this situation objectively and realize there's a reason that you are presumed innocent.