Police: Young woman killed in gunfight between concealed weapon permit holder, felon

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Why? Short excerpts with the link included are usually sufficient. Not only are huge walls of text annoying and seldom read, posting large articles in their entirety usually violates the TOS of many boards, not to mention copyrights.

Back to the topic - have you determined who killed the bystander yet?

Who shot the innocent young woman?

and The convicted Felon with an illegal gun, who had already been busted once for carrying an illegal gun as a felon and was let go, started firing. The legal gun owner returned fire and the Felon stooped firing and left..

Here is what we can take away from your story

1.A seven time convicted felon who had already once been convicted of carrying an illegal gun,was on the loose with a gun..-Moral of the story--Enforce the gun laws we already have instead of making more new ones that punish law abiding citizens.

2.Despite breaking many laws and despite breaking the exact gun law that would have prevented him from having a gun, this criminal was still walking the street with a gun.

3. The lawful gun owner did not draw his weapon and use it until he was fired upon. Police said the lawful gun owner did not escalate the situation

4. Had the lawful gun owner not returned fire many more could have been wounded

5. The lawful gun owner was not charged

The gun rights people will not avoid this thread as predicted because it is a text book example of Gun Laws already on the books not being enforced and a lawful gun owner using his weapon only for defense after being fired upon.

This story brightly illustrates everything we have been saying in here

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The VJ NRA-ILA rep has an answer. Just you wait.

Here is your answer

Murder Warrant Issued for Jerome 'CJ' Linzy Hopkins in Liberty Park Shooting

http://renton.patch.com/groups/breaking-news/p/murder-warrant-issued-for-jerome-cj-linzy-hopkins-in-liberty-park-shooting

Seems the 7 time convicted felon who had already been busted once for carrying an illegal firearm as a felon, has now been charged with murder and identified as the shooter.

Thank you for posting a story that illustrates so clearly why all the anti gun hysteria is so ridiculous. The only think tougher gun law would have done is to keep the lawful gun owner that probably saved many lives from stepping in.

I bet the gun rights people avoid this LOL Epic Fail

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Your link:

Posted by Kendall Watson (Editor) , May 30, 2013 at 09:01 PM

The OP article:

Seattle man charged with assault, not murder, in May shooting

By LEVI PULKKINEN, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF
Published 9:31 pm, Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Yes, epic fail.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Since this incident happened 3 months ago, who fired the fatal shot?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Since this incident happened 3 months ago, who fired the fatal shot?

The convicted felon

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Since this incident happened 3 months ago, who fired the fatal shot?

I am sure Nature Boy is working on it right now.

The convicted felon

The fail continues.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I am sure Nature Boy is working on it right now.

The fail continues.

text book example of a legal gun owner defending himself and others against a convicted felon, who despite many laws on the books and having been charged with illegal gun possession still was on the streets with a gun

How many would have died that day if the legal gun owner had not returned fire when the felon started shooting at people.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

text book example of a legal gun owner defending himself and others against a convicted felon, who despite many laws on the books and having been charged with illegal gun possession still was on the streets with a gun

How many would have died that day if the legal gun owner had not returned fire when the felon started shooting at people.

Perhaps a young woman would still be alive.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Perhaps a young woman would still be alive.

perhaps if they enforced laws already on the books a seven time convicted felon with a arrest for carrying a weapon as a felon,would be in jail instead of firing widely into a crowd and killing innocent by standers.

But i digress..Taking the gun away from the legal gun owner who stopped it would solve everything

Cute..But REALLY?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You know the gun lovers are going to steer from this thread.

Wrong again.

Every state which has implemented concealed carry has had a reduction in crime and homicided. Every one. NONE have had an elimination of crime and homicide.

Repealing concealed carry woud result in an INCREASE in people killed. Perhaps not this particular woman, but perhaps 7 or 8 others instead.

This line of "reasoning" is as ignorant as any other used by people who desire to remove your civil rights Marvin. It is the same as Bloomberg saying that stopping and frisking Black people was saving lives and reducing crime. Shall we continue with that?

It is not different than listing the headlines of children killed by airbags in automobiles or someone who dies when their seatbelt cannot be unfastened and the car burns. or they drown when the car goes into water. Would we suggest eliminating seat belts or airbags which are known to REDUCE injuries and death? Of course not. THAT would be STUPID.

What is more telling is that the people who want to ban guns do not report when a concealed carry holder saves the lives of people, even without injuring anyone. Why did Patriot NOT post about that? There is another thread running right now where a concealed carry holder is credited with saving several lives. Why didn't Patriot post that? Isn't that GOOD news?

Concealed Carry holders, when taken as a group, have a microscopically low incidence of commiting crime. There are millions and millions of people authorized to carry concealed weapons. That so few of them killed police officers is proof of how law abiding they are. How many NON concealed carry holders killed police officers during that same period? How many of those that did even needed to have a concealed carry permit at the time? I remember another of Patriots examples, where a concealed carry holder killed his wife...AT HOME. He killed her AT HOME Marvin. Why would a concealed carry permit be needed for that? How would the elimination of concealed carry prevent THAT crime? It's nonsense. He may as well report that the man has a subscription to "Reader's Digest"...it would be as relevent.

Compare the rates (per 100,000) of conceald carry permit holders that kill someone in error to the rate of police officers that kill someone in error. Shall we disarm the police? Maybe we should eliminate the police altogether. I mean, police DO kill people in error or by accident and those people are disproportionately black. Shall we eliminate police Marvin? What would be the NET RESULT of elimnating police? Would more or less black people be killed at the end of the year?

You will say it is irrelevent or that Gary only talks about Vermont...people who wish to eliminate our civil rights only talk about death. Vermont has ALWAYS allowed concealed carry by ANYONE and we have NEVER had a police officer killed by gunfire in the line of duty. Never. Ever. Since 1791. Ever. When I am stopped by a polivce officer for a traffic violatrion or something, I always inform them I a carrying a concealed handgun. We are not required to do so, I considr it courteous. The response is usually "meh...whatever, OK so just leave it concealed"

If any of this reporting of mayhem and tragedy meant a thing then at least ONE state would have repealed concealed carry. NONE have. One after another the states implemented concealed carry because the FACTS show that it reduces crime...and it has reduced crime and saved iives.

That someone, somewhere, is occasionally killed as an unintended consequence of what is overall a very good crime fighting tool is irrelevent. Anyone expecting concealed carry to eliminate crime will be disappointed.

If any "gun lovers" avoid this thread it is only because they know how irrelevent it is to argue with idiots.

We prefer to take our arguments to state legislatures and courts where we win, time after time after time. When the anti-gun idiots try to implement laws to strip our rights on a Federal level, we will meet them where it matters and turn them back empty handed, just as we did earlier this year

Within 10 years, EVERY state will have "shall issue" concealed carry. EVERY state will have reciprocity to other state's concealed carry licenses. I will board a plane and carry a concealed handgun, legally, in Bill's city in California.

We already have one Federal Appeals Court ruling (7th circuit court of appleas) that states CANNOT unreasonably restrict a peron's RIGHT to carry concealed handguns and this has FORCED Illinois to implement concealed carry and since then 79 LESS young black men have been killed in Chicago this year over last year. Is that good news Marvin?

When that ruling, or another, goes to the SCOTUS it will be applied nationwide. IL will not challenge it to SCOTUS. For exactly that reason. So the NRA will sue another state for restricting rights, and another and another...Until we eliminate the racially discrimanatory practice of "discretionary" concealed carry in the remaining 5 states that discriminate by race on the issue of permits. The NRA will make sure that black people in CA have exactly the same opportunity to recieve a CC permit as white people...and in NY, and NJ and MA and HI. The NRA entered the legislative arena in 1977. I was at that meeting. I voted to do that. Ince then we have had concealed carry implemented in every state (5 states still discrimnate against black people) turned back Federal laws, repealed the GCA '68, Repealed the Brady Act, Repealed the AWB '94, overthrew the congress that passed the AWB and efectively eliminated ANY Federal legislation against our rights since 1994, nearly 20 years Marvin.

Since 1977, nationwide crime has fallen dramatically. Whether you give credit where it is due or not...the efforts of the NRA have not resulted in a crime INCREASE. Arguing that gun controls are effective for reducing crime has been debunked for anyone with functioning brains that do not have a hidden agenda.

Whether we avoid this thread or not makes no difference. We are busy where it matters. The states, all of them, WILL recognize our rights, either by legislation or by having it shoved up their @ss. I do not care if they like it or not. Makes no difference to me.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Perhaps a young woman would still be alive.

Perhaps.

And perhaps 79 young black men in Chicago would be dead. That is how many LESS young black men have died this year compareed to last year after CC was forced on Chicago and IL.

Crime and homicide have been reduced by CC nationwide, in every state it has been implemented. Do you wish to trade those lives for this one woman?

[lostinblue 1,989]

According to charging papers, second shooter said Hopkins actually tried to execute the first man to rush into the fight. Holding a pistol to the man’s head, Hopkins pulled the trigger; the gun failed to fire.

Looks like there is someone alive because a concealed carry was on the scene . Maybe more than one.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Wrong again.

Every state which has implemented concealed carry has had a reduction in crime and homicided. Every one. NONE have had an elimination of crime and homicide.

Repealing concealed carry woud result in an INCREASE in people killed. Perhaps not this particular woman, but perhaps 7 or 8 others instead.

This line of "reasoning" is as ignorant as any other used by people who desire to remove your civil rights Marvin. It is the same as Bloomberg saying that stopping and frisking Black people was saving lives and reducing crime. Shall we continue with that?

It is not different than listing the headlines of children killed by airbags in automobiles or someone who dies when their seatbelt cannot be unfastened and the car burns. or they drown when the car goes into water. Would we suggest eliminating seat belts or airbags which are known to REDUCE injuries and death? Of course not. THAT would be STUPID.

What is more telling is that the people who want to ban guns do not report when a concealed carry holder saves the lives of people, even without injuring anyone. Why did Patriot NOT post about that? There is another thread running right now where a concealed carry holder is credited with saving several lives. Why didn't Patriot post that? Isn't that GOOD news?

Concealed Carry holders, when taken as a group, have a microscopically low incidence of commiting crime. There are millions and millions of people authorized to carry concealed weapons. That so few of them killed police officers is proof of how law abiding they are. How many NON concealed carry holders killed police officers during that same period? How many of those that did even needed to have a concealed carry permit at the time? I remember another of Patriots examples, where a concealed carry holder killed his wife...AT HOME. He killed her AT HOME Marvin. Why would a concealed carry permit be needed for that? How would the elimination of concealed carry prevent THAT crime? It's nonsense. He may as well report that the man has a subscription to "Reader's Digest"...it would be as relevent.

Compare the rates (per 100,000) of conceald carry permit holders that kill someone in error to the rate of police officers that kill someone in error. Shall we disarm the police? Maybe we should eliminate the police altogether. I mean, police DO kill people in error or by accident and those people are disproportionately black. Shall we eliminate police Marvin? What would be the NET RESULT of elimnating police? Would more or less black people be killed at the end of the year?

You will say it is irrelevent or that Gary only talks about Vermont...people who wish to eliminate our civil rights only talk about death. Vermont has ALWAYS allowed concealed carry by ANYONE and we have NEVER had a police officer killed by gunfire in the line of duty. Never. Ever. Since 1791. Ever. When I am stopped by a polivce officer for a traffic violatrion or something, I always inform them I a carrying a concealed handgun. We are not required to do so, I considr it courteous. The response is usually "meh...whatever, OK so just leave it concealed"

If any of this reporting of mayhem and tragedy meant a thing then at least ONE state would have repealed concealed carry. NONE have. One after another the states implemented concealed carry because the FACTS show that it reduces crime...and it has reduced crime and saved iives.

That someone, somewhere, is occasionally killed as an unintended consequence of what is overall a very good crime fighting tool is irrelevent. Anyone expecting concealed carry to eliminate crime will be disappointed.

If any "gun lovers" avoid this thread it is only because they know how irrelevent it is to argue with idiots.

We prefer to take our arguments to state legislatures and courts where we win, time after time after time. When the anti-gun idiots try to implement laws to strip our rights on a Federal level, we will meet them where it matters and turn them back empty handed, just as we did earlier this year

Within 10 years, EVERY state will have "shall issue" concealed carry. EVERY state will have reciprocity to other state's concealed carry licenses. I will board a plane and carry a concealed handgun, legally, in Bill's city in California.

We already have one Federal Appeals Court ruling (7th circuit court of appleas) that states CANNOT unreasonably restrict a peron's RIGHT to carry concealed handguns and this has FORCED Illinois to implement concealed carry and since then 79 LESS young black men have been killed in Chicago this year over last year. Is that good news Marvin?

When that ruling, or another, goes to the SCOTUS it will be applied nationwide. IL will not challenge it to SCOTUS. For exactly that reason. So the NRA will sue another state for restricting rights, and another and another...Until we eliminate the racially discrimanatory practice of "discretionary" concealed carry in the remaining 5 states that discriminate by race on the issue of permits. The NRA will make sure that black people in CA have exactly the same opportunity to recieve a CC permit as white people...and in NY, and NJ and MA and HI. The NRA entered the legislative arena in 1977. I was at that meeting. I voted to do that. Ince then we have had concealed carry implemented in every state (5 states still discrimnate against black people) turned back Federal laws, repealed the GCA '68, Repealed the Brady Act, Repealed the AWB '94, overthrew the congress that passed the AWB and efectively eliminated ANY Federal legislation against our rights since 1994, nearly 20 years Marvin.

Since 1977, nationwide crime has fallen dramatically. Whether you give credit where it is due or not...the efforts of the NRA have not resulted in a crime INCREASE. Arguing that gun controls are effective for reducing crime has been debunked for anyone with functioning brains that do not have a hidden agenda.

Whether we avoid this thread or not makes no difference. We are busy where it matters. The states, all of them, WILL recognize our rights, either by legislation or by having it shoved up their @ss. I do not care if they like it or not. Makes no difference to me.

I have a question, have you ever lived in a poor, black neighborhood? I'm going to take a guess and say no. If you have, then by all means disregard my next statements:

CC wouldn't reduce crime in places like DC, Baltimore, STL, or even Lousiana. You know why? Because a gun isn't going to stop someone who has no regard for human life, theirs or anyone else. This is the part of the equation you keep missing. You're not dealing with folks with an axe to grind, these are people who have nothing to lose and no hope to live for. They would cut you and your family down without batting an eyelash. There are neighborhoods so bad t the cops won't even go in, you have shootings in broad daylight.

Crime is reduced when you throw jobs into the mix, when kids are educated and kept out of the gang mentality. How many gangs do you have in Vermont? What's the unemployment like there? I'll wager this is why your state is safe, not because everyone is carrying a gun.

83% of blacks support gun control, only 53% support gun rights. The effort should be education, equal pay, jobs, not arming everyone.

[Ban Hammer 13,589]

83% of blacks support gun control, only 53% support gun rights.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/toure-if-adam-lanza-shot-up-a-black-school-there-would-be-no-national-conversation-about-guns/

Check out the video.

My bad, 83% of blacks don't own guns.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Su and Marvin