Sword Control Now!
From the Boston Herald:
Sword play lands boy in hospital
Can we expect waves of outrage from the gun "safety" (read: gun banning) organizations? They're constantly wailing about the need to protect our children from grievous harm. Well, it doesn't get more grievous than slicing your arteries open with a sword. The hypocrisy is sickening.
Fortunately, Nevin is expected to recover, but it could have been MUCH worse. Imagine how the parents would have felt had their son died from his injury. It takes just a second for questionable judgment to turn into unimaginable tragedy.
Do you think these parents, or any parents, would allow their 13-year-old son to practice defensive handgun use in the house with a loaded firearm? No, of course they wouldn't. Now ask yourself which is potentially more dangerous, a gun that requires knowledge of how to operate it in order to discharge a round or a "razor sharp" sword that can cause serious injury by merely touching it?
Or, which of the tools below would cause you greater concern in the hands of a two-year-old child?
Now, which of those requires no license to purchase? Which is not subject to any state "safe storage" laws? Which is easily accessible on kitchen countertops throughout the country?
To summarize, in Massachusetts, if you allow your child access to a razor sharp object (designed, by the way, for the purpose of killing people), and he slices his femoral artery open as a result thereof, you will not be prosecuted. But let your kid so much as look at a gun in your house and suddenly you're a danger to society, and you will be facing a judge in the near future as a consequence of your reckless behavior.
In the Bay State, this is known as "common sense".
I think I'd best keep my mouth shut now before some nutjob legislator takes my "advice" and actually introduces legislation banning private ownership of sharp objects. As I wrote in the comments to this post at The Kallini Brothers:
Naturally, future amendments would be introduced, addressing licensing and testing requirements for swimming pools, bug spray, matches, hammers, screwdrivers, shovels, rocks, etc.
It's "for the children". You understand.
Sword play lands boy in hospital
A 13-year-old boy almost bled to death when he accidentally stabbed himself in the leg with a "razor sharp" three-foot sword, but was recovering yesterday in a Salem hospital room.
Nevin Pothier, 13, was practicing martial arts at his Nahant home Sunday afternoon when the sword "evidently slipped out of his hands," and sliced his femoral artery, police said.
[snip]
Hutton said Nevin had surgery and is expected to recover. No criminal charges will be filed.
Can we expect waves of outrage from the gun "safety" (read: gun banning) organizations? They're constantly wailing about the need to protect our children from grievous harm. Well, it doesn't get more grievous than slicing your arteries open with a sword. The hypocrisy is sickening.
Fortunately, Nevin is expected to recover, but it could have been MUCH worse. Imagine how the parents would have felt had their son died from his injury. It takes just a second for questionable judgment to turn into unimaginable tragedy.
Do you think these parents, or any parents, would allow their 13-year-old son to practice defensive handgun use in the house with a loaded firearm? No, of course they wouldn't. Now ask yourself which is potentially more dangerous, a gun that requires knowledge of how to operate it in order to discharge a round or a "razor sharp" sword that can cause serious injury by merely touching it?
Or, which of the tools below would cause you greater concern in the hands of a two-year-old child?
Now, which of those requires no license to purchase? Which is not subject to any state "safe storage" laws? Which is easily accessible on kitchen countertops throughout the country?
To summarize, in Massachusetts, if you allow your child access to a razor sharp object (designed, by the way, for the purpose of killing people), and he slices his femoral artery open as a result thereof, you will not be prosecuted. But let your kid so much as look at a gun in your house and suddenly you're a danger to society, and you will be facing a judge in the near future as a consequence of your reckless behavior.
In the Bay State, this is known as "common sense".
I think I'd best keep my mouth shut now before some nutjob legislator takes my "advice" and actually introduces legislation banning private ownership of sharp objects. As I wrote in the comments to this post at The Kallini Brothers:
I would propose legislation that would require all food goods to be sold in pieces no larger than a 1/2-inch cube.
Likewise, all string and rope shall me sold in precut lengths ranging from 6 inches to 150 feet, in 6-inch increments.
This will make possible a nationwide ban on knives.
Metal scissors will also be banned. Any citizen who wishes to have something cut that cant be cut with plastic scissors must take that item to a government-licensed cutting facility where specially trained federal employees will cut the material to the proper size and shape.
Also, to curb the epidemic of baseball bat injuries, baseball and softball, up through the collegiate level will now be played without bats. When the pitch crosses the plate, the umpire will determine if the batter would have swung at it had he or she been holding a bat.
If a swing would have taken place, the batter will push a button on a hand-held remote control device and a randomly-generated outcome will appear on the scoreboard. The batter would than take appropriate action (e.g. go to second base for a double, or return to the bench for a popout).
Naturally, future amendments would be introduced, addressing licensing and testing requirements for swimming pools, bug spray, matches, hammers, screwdrivers, shovels, rocks, etc.
It's "for the children". You understand.
