I oppose almost all government licensing. But at least when it comes to weapons one can typically understand, if not necessarily agree with, the arguments of those who propose such licensing. That is not the case for me here:

Two city councilors will propose an ordinance today that would require businesses in Boston to be licensed before they can sell knives, which officials said minors can easily buy at retailers across the city.

“Why is it that people can buy a knife at their corner store, where their neighbors are buying milk and other household goods?’’ City Councilor Michael P. Ross said he was recently asked by Genie Curry of Roxbury. “And, why are they selling knives to children?’’

Curry, 58, a member of the grass-roots group Mothers for Justice and Equality, asked Ross about the measure at a dinner several weeks ago. Her son Kramo Lavon Curry, 23, was stabbed to death in 2000.

I’m sorry for her loss, but this kind of emotional legislating benefits no one. To answer Mrs. Curry’s question, the reason people can buy a knife at the same corner store where their neighbors are buying milk and other household goods is because a knife is a household good. It’s hard to have a household without one.

But why limit it to knives if that’s your reasoning? Presumably, even if they did succeed in the impossible task of limiting access to knives from would-be hooligans, what’s to stop them from using other weapons commonly available? Why not require licenses for anything that can kill someone? The reason is that it would be absurd, as the list of potential weapons is nearly endless – basically anything that’s either really sharp or blunt and heavy. Either way you slice it, it’s a fools errands; so why even bother with knives? Oh, right, a license always comes with a “licensing fee,” payable to your local government for the pleasure of exercising your rights.