posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by Raist
Do you suppose, that if a man was found guilty of caving in a persons skull with a brick, that Bloomberg would ban building with them? I mean, I am
pretty sure that given a brick, the element of suprise, and a hefty follow through, I could probably do that sort of thing in a single blow, and that
would make it officially far more dangerous than a bloody sparkler.
Still, I suppose one could, if one were mentally ill enough, drive the untreated end of a sparlker into a persons occular cavity, and then light it,
so that the twitching of the victim creates patterns in the light as they go into shock... Still, it would be more sensible to arrest the person
responsible for that, than ban the item they did it with.
Oddly enough, this is precisely the same issue as with gun control, except in the case of sparklers, no terrorist has yet used one in commission of a
terror related offence, and further more, no one has ever been caught attempting to murder someone using a sparkler.