WWE: 5 (Socioeconomic) Reasons Why Weapons Should Come Back

Whether used to hide a wrestler's lack of in-ring ability or used as a framing device for such matches as TLC (yay) or Punjabi Prison (vomit), weapons (I prefer foreign objects) have been an integral part of professional wrestling ever since Stephen Douglas blasted Abraham Lincoln with a loaded Tax Reform Plan during their Best-Out-Of-Seven Falls Count Anywhere in the State of Illinois Match.

Fast forward to the late-1990s, where some Juggalos from flyover country got a hold of some Japanese Death Match footage and thought, "Hey, we can do that," thus creating Backyard Wrestling. The liberal media (via Fox News) was all like "think about the children," even though Social Darwinism was clearly attempting to thin out the herd. Thus, people began to frown on people hitting other people repeatedly with kitchen items. Then Linda McMahon decided to take time off from her busy schedule of delivering flat, emotionless promos and selling Stone Cold Stunners the way a grandmother way past menopause would sell a Stone Cold Stunner, to run for a U.S. Senate seat. Unsuccessfully. Twice. During the duration of the campaigns, WWE Creative received orders to generate content geared to maintaining a TV-PG rating, relegating weapons to special appearances in gimmick matches or the occasional beatdown. But never fear. Convincing the higher-ups at Titan Towers to bring weapons back is not so daunting. One just has to push the right socioeconomic buttons if one is appealing to the business crowd. I should probably get this out of the way: I'm not an economist. My research boiled down to reading Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics a dozen or so times, multiple Survival Mode runs on WWF No Mercy for the Nintendo 64, as well as ECW and FMW YouTube marathons. I can, however, dish out economic advice and not have to deal with the consequences of my suggestions with the best of them. I figure that makes me as qualified as Matthew Lesko.