Wednesday, January 26, 2011

NYC Mayor Bloomberg Calls for Tougher Gun-Control While Elderly Staten Island Couple Is Nearly Beaten To Death In Apartment Building Lobby.

January 26th, 2011 (Wednesday)

It was widely reported in New York area news that New York City Mayor Bloomberg has again called for tougher national gun-control laws. On Monday, he hosted a rally to promote and highlight his agenda for more gun-control. This rally appeared to be in response to the tragic shooting incident in Tucson, Arizona (wherein an armed violent creep shot a Congresswoman, a Federal judge, and several other unarmed and defenseless citizens). This effort by Mayor Bloomberg to strengthen gun-control laws was also reported on News 12 Long Island on Monday. (See:

Nearly at the same time – or the evening before the rally, an elderly Staten Island couple was “viciously beaten” in the lobby of their apartment building by an unknown assailant/violent creep. Upon returning/walking home after closing their nearby shop, the couple was severely beaten to the point of the elderly woman requiring hospitalization. Had not the couple’s middle-aged son luckily appeared on the scene, it is likely that the unknown violent creep would have beaten the couple to death, as the elderly gentleman described the attack – and as reported on NYC’s Channel 7 News. The son was also beaten until the assailant apparently decided to flee with the all the cash the couple had in their possession: a mere $18 (eighteen dollars) is what he robbed from the couple. (See:; and:

Clearly, if the son or the elderly couple had been armed, the attack likely would not have happened or surely would not have progressed to the extent which it did. Of course, when brandishing a gun, we are all aware that the situation could become inflamed or end with even more tragic results to the innocent. One never knows the results of something that did not happen. However, had any of the victims been armed and ready or able to defend themselves, they may have avoided being the victims of the beating and likely saved the rest of society from a similar fate; as the unknown assailant/violent creep is now still on the loose and will probably strike again.

What’s more, what does the multi-billionaire Mayor Bloomberg know of having to defend oneself from attack? Wherever he goes, surely he is in a limousine with a driver and likely has an armed bodyguard (if not many of them) or a police escort. He is unlikely to ever be faced with the dilemma of whether or not he should take a short-cut through a dark alley when walking solo though an urban area. So, who is he to say or mandate that guns should become more difficult for the populace to acquire?

Conversely, I say, give all the citizens guns to defend themselves from potential attack. Attacks such as this one would then surely cease immediately! The good people of the nation would undoubtedly rid the populace of violent creeps such as the one still on the loose on Staten Island. Though I am not sure how accurate such a saying is anymore, I am always reminded of what my deceased uncle (John Hancock) of Houston, Texas always told me in my younger days. He said: “In Houston, everyone has guns, so no one gets robbed. In New York City, however, no one has guns and everyone gets robbed [or likely could be robbed at anytime].”

This blog is not meant as any type of attack of words on NYC Mayor Bloomberg and he is surely entitled to his opinion. I respect him and his efforts to better NYC/Gotham City. Ultimately, I think he has done a good job as Mayor, in my opinion and from what I know of it all. However, such a politician/billionaire who is well-removed from the potentially seedy and realistic trenches of everyday life where much of the citizenry has to fear violent attack should not be attempting to make it more difficult for the citizenry to obtain the necessary weapons to defend themselves against attack from violent creeps – such as defending themselves from the violent creep currently on the loose on Staten Island!

It is worth noting that when the Founding Fathers assured the American Nation of The People’s Right to Bear Arms, the Right to arm oneself for self-defense against random attacks [by violent creeps] was surely taken for granted and such was not the reason the People were vested with this Right. The ability to defend oneself against haphazard and violent attack was clearly an inalienable Right of the American society and way of life. And, should anyone in the modern era attempt to deny such a fact displays they are ignorant of American history. As a simple example, it wasn’t called a Colt Peacemaker for nothing. Also, if anyone in the modern era should believe such a concern for self-defense is a relic of the by-gone past, I would suggest they speak to the aforementioned and apparently law-abiding elderly couple from Staten Island; but the elderly woman will likely need to have her broken jaw un-wired before she can truly speak with anyone, unfortunately.

To be clear, I don’t carry a gun nor do I believe that I need to carry a gun. However, for law-abiding citizens that live in potentially violent areas, they should be able to arm themselves for defense should they believe such a need exists or if they are unable to defend themselves in any other manner. And to be sure, if guns are outlawed/banned, only the criminals will have guns. Who in their right mind would think the criminals would not be aware of this fact that only they would have guns? Criminals don’t care about any laws – that is why they are called criminals. The truth of the matter is simple: If any criminal/violent creep were to seriously desire obtaining a gun, they would likely get one regardless of any laws. Would we, as Americans, be content to know that the law-abiding Citizens of our Nation could then be considered as criminals merely for seeking the ability to defend themselves against violent criminals who care nothing of gun-control laws? Hopefully this last point will remain only as a hypothetical one.

I would be happy to debate any individual on this topic at anytime, btw!

Adam Vernon Trotter / AVT

See also:

Follow-on blog (Feb.1, 2011)