Another anti-gunner article... McDonalds shootout.

CharlesAFerg · Jul 24, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/23/california.mcdonalds.massacre/index.html

"Huberty fired about 30 armor-piercing rounds at the officer, who could hear them striking metal posts and skipping off the asphalt."

This, supposedly before he retrieved his Ruger mini-14, so how can an Uzi have armor piercing bullets..?

Pathetic.

timbernet · Jul 24, 2009

long-barreled Uzi semiautomatic rifle

What??!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi

MarkSBG · Jul 24, 2009

Not uncommon...

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=135046179

Bark · Jul 24, 2009

?, sounds more like a wake up call for the cops, they need to have the best training and weapons.....there are some seriously bad people out there and they like "we" need to have adequate fire power to handle these situations.

Trlsmn · Jul 24, 2009

Wow CNN digging up stuff from 25 years ago to stir anti gun propaganda, who would have thunk it. :s0131:

CEF1959 · Jul 24, 2009

Oh, good, a 25 year retrospective... Must have been a slow news day at CNN. "No blood and gore to report today; let's see what we have in the archives."

I don't know how this story justifies more police firepower. The first officer to respond had a .223; he just wasn't using it, because he lacked intel about what the situation was. Once he figured it out, his inability to take the guy out wasn't a lack of firepower, it was that he couldn't get a clear shot at him. Finally, they took him out with a single sniper's bullet. Old school.

Allowing the patrons to be armed makes more sense as a solution than handing the boys in blue more toys to play with at taxpayer expense. But you won't hear that recommendation coming from the cops. They think that discouraging an armed populace makes them safer, and it might. But it sure puts the rest of us at risk.

Trlsmn · Jul 24, 2009

CEF1959 said:
Oh, good, a 25 year retrospective... Must have been a slow news day at CNN. "No blood and gore to report today; let's see what we have in the archives."

I don't know how this story justifies more police firepower. The first officer to respond had a .223; he just wasn't using it, because he lacked intel about what the situation was. Once he figured it out, his inability to take the guy out wasn't a lack of firepower, it was that he couldn't get a clear shot at him. Finally, they took him out with a single sniper's bullet. Old school.

Allowing the patrons to be armed makes more sense as a solution than handing the boys in blue more toys to play with at taxpayer expense. But you won't hear that recommendation coming from the cops. They think that discouraging an armed populace makes them safer, and it might. But it sure puts the rest of us at risk.

That and the fact that the police do have the firepower now which I don't have a problem with. I don't know what more tools we could give them so I just don't see the point other of this article other than to try to keep the sheeple skardz.