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.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting this "no questions asked" thing from. A full investigation was done. Zimmerman was brought to the police station, in hand cuffs, in a patrol car after the incident. I'm sure he was asked plenty of questions. I'm sure so were the many witnesses.

As for a confrontation ending up with a dead body, let me ask you something. If someone who had a full 6 inches in height on you, was on top of you, slamming your head into the ground, would you just let him do it? Or would you use whatever means are available to you to prevent this attacker from bashing your head in? There's a concept called disparity of force. This is a concept that comes up time and time again in cases of lethal use of force in self defense. Without using this case (I'll get to that in a bit), an example of disparity of force would be this. An 80 year old woman is attacked by a 25 year old man without weapons, just his fists. This constitutes disparity of force because there is no way that 80 year old woman can provide the same amount of force back to that man, without the use of a weapon. In this case, she would be justified pulling the .38 Special Revolver from her purse, and putting a bullet or two in the man. It would be ruled a justifiable homicide, and the woman would be allowed to go about her life.

Ok, so how does this relate to this case? If you were to put Martin in Zimmerman in the octagon, and let them go at it, they'd likely be a fairly even match. Martin is 6'3" 160lbs. Zimmerman is 5'9", and around 180lbs (the estimates that put him at around the 240-250 mark were based on the infamous mugshot that the news loved showing of Zimmerman, that was also 5 years old). However, with Martin physically on top of Zimmerman (two eyewitnesses, and Zimmerman's own story state this) and his hands on his head, there is little Zimmerman can do to stop what's going on. Slamming someone's head into the ground is lethal force. The disparity of force, assuming this version of events is true (and there is practically no evidence to suggest that it is not, at this time), is very evident, with Zimmerman left with little choice but to draw his weapon and fire.

You may believe that it doesn't matter who started the confrontation, but leaving fantasy land, and entering the real world, it actually does matter. Carrying a gun does not make you guilty, as you seem to be implying. If Zimmerman started the confrontation, and provoked Martin, he is a cold blooded murderer, and deserves to spend the rest of his years in prison. If, however, Zimmerman's only crime (which isn't a crime) was following a suspicious person, and it was Martin that instigated the confrontation, then the death of Trayvon Martin should rightly be ruled a justifiable homicide.

Wait, wait, wait...

Soooooo, in order to use lethal force to defend myself, I have to wait until AFTER I have sustained substantial injury?

Are you fucking stupid? Or just insane?

"Derp, derp, derp, Imma let you bash my head in a few more times before I try to defend myself, derp."

Only with lasers, as far as I know.

It's a damn shame that most people don't actually know what racial profiling is, and how it is used, everyday, legally, to fight crime. It's not what most people think it is.