Machetes in Minnesota?

Since it's been brought up, I guess I should say something that I haven't said about the Blevins case in Minnesota.

The fact that Blevins defended himself with a machete is a factor in many people's minds.

I have to admit that even I heard the word "machete" and thought, "Wait...Rwanda is happening in the streets of Minnesota?"

That's a gut response. It's not a reasoned response.

It took one conversion with one of my best friends (who has never harmed anyone to my knowledge), to hear a case in which he was carrying a machete for an entirely practical reason.

There are a lot of blades that were designed specifically for combat. Machetes aren't among them. Machetes have hacked open more coconuts than they've hacked off limbs.

Still, asking why the guy used a machete to defend himself is the same dumb reasoning behind why a person would grab an AR-15 during a home invasion, or why I would be carrying a Sig chambered in .45 as opposed to a revolver or whatever.

When you're being attacked, and you're facing death, you use what you have on you.

If I didn't carry a gun, and I was on my way to help a friend slice some papayas, and I was attacked along the way, I would defend myself with a machete.

Still, this should never be a consideration. It's documented that people are more likely to convict a defender on the basis of the weapon.

If Blevins hadn't been attacked, nobody would be talking about his machete. If Rittenhouse hadn't been attacked, nobody would be talking about his rifle. If nobody invades my house, nobody will have to talk about my AK. If nobody tries to kill me while I'm out on the street, nobody will have to talk about my Sig or my Smith and Wesson.