Brutal Machete Attack in Times Square ‘Gun-Free’ Disarmament Zone

Times Square stabbing machete attack
New York City Police Department is saying that at approximately 1:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, a person was stabbed with a machete in both legs in Times Square on West 54th Street and Broadway. (Photo by Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via AP)

The brutal stabbing of a man in New York City’s Times Square on Thursday underscores the futility of public disarmament, which affects only law-abiding citizens, and proves the proponents of so-called “sensitive zones” are clueless, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said.

Several news agencies reported the incident, indicating three men were involved and they apparently used a machete to wound the victim in both legs. Police have detained three suspects, but CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the attack never should have happened in a place where honest citizens cannot legally carry firearms for personal protection.

“New York officials have declared Times Square and other public venues to be ‘sensitive places,’ leaving people vulnerable to attack by criminals who don’t follow the rules,” Gottlieb observed. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that disarming good citizens creates risk-free environments for dangerous thugs and crazy people to engage in savagery. The people responsible for disarming law-abiding citizens in Times Square are clueless when it comes to dealing with violent crime.

“Somewhere in city hall, or maybe up in Albany, somebody in government is probably working up a way to spin this tragedy so the mayor or governor can argue that at least a gun wasn’t involved,” he added. “Armed private citizens defend themselves or others upwards of a million times each year, often without firing a shot, but apparently in New York, government is on the side of the criminal element.”

Gottlieb questioned how the suspects could be walking around in the Times Square with a machete and not be noticed by police. 

“Prohibiting legally-carried guns in any public place is an exercise of gross misfeasance,” Gottlieb said. “This incident only proves that criminals will adapt to other weapons, and presuming ‘sensitive zone’ disarmament will prevent violent crime is a monumental failure of common sense.”


With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ( is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations.

15 Responses

    1. That’s not fair to the people who DIDN’T vote for this sh*t. And frankly, this sh*t spreads. Sooner or later it will get you too. But do be smug. It’s ever so helpful.

      1. It’s not going to get better for you there. You are vastly outnumbered. I hope you have a plan of action to get out while you can. Will the last person leaving New York please turn out the lights?

      2. Yet they refused to act to stop it. Tyranny allowed is tyranny deserved. The Founding Fathers grew to understand that and acted appropriately to stop it.

  1. In a democracy, the majority rules. Yes, the people who didn’t vote for stupid policies suffer from the imposition of those policies.

    But that begs the question: Are the majority of people willing to change? As Glenn Reynolds notes, in various cities like San Francisco and Chicago, things get worse, yet the public consistently votes back in the same party, and often the same people. Bill DeBlasio oversaw the decline of NYC, and how many times was he RE-ELECTED?

    So, at some point, the people seem to be willing to accept the bad policies. Some even EMBRACE those policies. Forgive me if I don’t have much sympathy for them.

    1. The majority is supposed to rule within the confines of the Constitution. Most of these supposed gun-free zones violate the Constitution. The proponents of such laws are not simply people with whom to disagree: they are people who hold constitutional law in contempt.

      1. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams

        This is the inevitable result of abandoning objective morality.

        It doesn’t have to get bad before people would be willing to change. It has to get REALLY, REALLY bad. Look up the violent crime rates leading up to the change of heart in the 90s to finally turn it around. We have a long way to go before it gets that bad again.

  2. So, at some point, the people seem to be willing to accept the bad policies.

    Those people care far less about policies than they do about the media-created celebrities, the candidates whose names they recognize. They don’t get to vote for the policies at all, and quite likely would prefer better law enforcement if such a thing were on the ballot.

  3. “…in New York, government is on the side of the criminal element.”

    No, as has been amply demonstrated, in New York the government IS the criminal element.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *