I enjoy pointing this out to hoplophobes everywhere:

Pietro Beretta and Sons - est. 1491

The gun is NOT GOING AWAY. Further, bans are only for some people – those without the protections of law are left to themselves. You can always tell who the leaders of the country are by seeing whether they have access to arms.

Now, check your founding documents. Who are the leaders of this country?

And doesn't "President of Beretta" sound a lot cooler than "President of the United States"?

I wonder if Beretta is going to stop selling guns in California like Smith & Wesson and Ruger are.

What gets me is how many legislators don't understand it is not the firearm's fault, any more than the bat, brick, or any weapon is at fault.

What the legislators don't understand (or even want to understand) is when emotions trump logic in lawmaking, we're all screwed. This is what happened in CT after the Sandy Hook thing. People were screaming and crying for "gun control" and "change the laws" and the legislators only did that because of peoples' emotions running so high, and logic didn't even come into it. They had to "DO SOMETHING" and so instead of looking into mental health issues and how they affect people who have access to guns, they decided to hamstring responsible gun owners.

Logic had nothin' to do with it.

Law abiding people are the ones with registered guns -- same as they register their cars.

The British forced Boston to turn in their guns because they could (knowledge and proximity).

Growth in Virginia followed the James River. Lots of luck getting guns from people sprawled out over distance.

Hell, police in New Orleans confiscated guns for home owners by doing a house to house search. Didn't bother those out and about at night.

BTDT in drug infested neighborhood. Experienced first hand what criminals feel about laws. Police were quicker to tell me to move than to increase patrols in the area.

So screw the government. You don't see SWAT going after open-air drug markets like you do them going into peoples homes. History shows what governments do w/knowledge of your activities.

Law abiding people are the ones with registered guns -- same as they register their cars.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 6, 2014 6:11 AM

I think "law abiding" people should register their computers, and cell phones so the government can more easily trace electronic communications related to terrorism. (Just kidding)

The problem with gun registration other than the obvious second amendment issues and privacy concerns, is that there is only one part with a serial number on it. That part can now be fabricated in a jiffy on a CNC machine.

If you want to carry a gun around with you, I have no problem with a requirement for a concealed carry permit, but if you keep it at home under your bed, or in your safe it should not be anyone else's business, including the government's that you own one, or four hundred. Likewise the amount of ammo or reloading components you chose to buy.

In Germany and Australia both, the government declared victory when they got their population to register a tiny fraction of the firearms actually in private hands. They ignore the millions of unregistered guns still out there because they were never a problem in the first place.

Amy, to follow up on your point about law-abiding citizens are the ones who register guns. Yes, and I would add that registering guns does nothing, absolutely nothing to benefit law-abiding citizens.

When a killer opens fire in a theater or school or where ever, do the police say: "hey, let's check our list of registered gun owners to see who the shooter might be"?

No, of course, they don't.

Further, Condoleezza Rice, in her book about her parents Extraordinary, Ordinary People, mentions her feelings about gun registration. She states that if Black folks had to register their guns in Birmingham, AL, back in the day, Bull Conner would have found some pretext to go around during the daytime and confiscate those guns, thereby, leaving the Black community unprotected from the Klan at night.

But, because back then folks didn't need to register their guns, Dr. Rice's father and several other Black men were able to sit on their front porches all night keeping watch over their neighborhood while being armed. And it was being armed which was enough incentive for the Klan to stay away. I'll bet that Rice is right, Conner would have loved to take away those guns and let the Klan have their way with the Birmingham Black community.

But, because back then folks didn't need to register their guns, Dr. Rice's father and several other Black men were able to sit on their front porches all night keeping watch over their neighborhood while being armed. And it was being armed which was enough incentive for the Klan to stay away. I'll bet that Rice is right, Conner would have loved to take away those guns and let the Klan have their way with the Birmingham Black community.

Posted by: Charles at February 6, 2014 8:16 AM

I know I am going to be called a racist for bring this up, but an even bigger threat to the peaceful law abiding black community, then and now, in the south, and in northern cities were their own unemployed "youths"

I have a friend who was raised in Compton California, whose father actually shot and killed someone who broke into their home while the family was all there. The friends mother was shot in the stomach by the intruder, but recovered.

Signore Beretta neglects to mention that in Italy where the company is based:

- Citizens need a permit from the government to own a gun
- All guns are tracked in a national database
- All transfers of ownership must be reported to the police within 72 hours
- It is (with few exceptions) illegal to carry a gun in public

And still the company seems to remain successful and seems to have no plan to pull out of Italy in favor of moving somewhere with more permissive gun laws.

Most European gun manufacturer's have factories overseas. Beretta is no different.

I am sure that Italy provides them with tax breaks and all sorts of financial incentives to keep a presence in Italy, but a big part of Beretta, is shotguns, which are still legal and fairly easy to acquire in Europe.
Beretta is not the sole Italian gun company. Morini, and Benelli also do a brisk business in firearms and accessories.

In fleeing the northeast US for Tennessee, Beretta is only doing what hundreds of other companies have done, which is search for a location which wont arbitrarily decide to regulate them out of business.

I know I am going to be called a racist for bring this up, but an even bigger threat to the peaceful law abiding black community, then and now, in the south, and in northern cities were their own [...]

Posted by: Isab at February 6, 2014 8:41 AM

Well, I do read it as a weird non sequitur in response to what I had read as an anecdote offered to illustrate the very real need to own firearms for personal protection.

Comparing the magnitude of threats by the race of the perpetrators introduces a new element to the discussion that does not seem to be responsive to the original point of the story or (what I read as) the point of sharing the story here. So I do wonder what prompted the comparison.

I guess, as a historian, I am extremely sensitive to caricatures of peaceful black people sitting on their porches while the Klan went out every night yanking them indiscriminately off their porches, and hanging them, mostly in small backward southern towns with "rednecks" always the villains.

The truth is a bit more complicated, and always has been.

The biggest threat to black people, and their property historically has been black males between the ages of 14-26.

And in the 20's when vigilante justice reached it's peak, plenty of whites were lynched too.

Gun control, has always been about disarming the victims, and the people out of political power, no matter what color they are.

When you turn every problem into whites against blacks, you end up with the NCAAP backing people like this....

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/02/jailed_rep_expelled_from_house_by_146_5_vote

Also I am amused to see most of the current democratic black political leaders nodding in unison, when Obama claims, if they can get get rid of all the guns, somehow the crime, and drug problem in places like Chicago, will just "go away".

"The biggest threat to black people, and their property historically has been black males between the ages of 14-26."

Moreso than slavery?

Isab is right, I recall reading a paper that laid out black on black murders in the north out numbered white on black lynchings in the south by 3 to 1.

Re Slavery. Were it nor for african (see black) slavers selling to the european slavers the slave trad would not have been so plentiful

"Law abiding people are the ones with registered guns -- same as they register their cars."

Check this out: "...it could lead to the most massive decontrol of firearms in American history."

"Moreso than slavery?"

Of course. Begging the question for awhile (as if all slaves were African blacks {no}), chart the future of a small black child born on the Old Continent, as opposed to in the USA.

Luj, I'm aware of the role of Africans in the slave trade (generally) but Isab's comment was about the race/ skin color of the predominant source of the threat to the safety and property of black Americans in the United States.

So my question still stands.

The introduction of the proportionate comparison of black on black murders to white on black murders inserted a racially polarizing element to a conversation that wasn't structured as such.

Rad, I read Isab's comment as being about threats to black people in the United States. I read it this way based on her preceding comments in this thread.

Nothing in the structure of Isab's statement or my question begs the question about the race of all people who have been enslaved, in the US or elsewhere.

Logic had nothin' to do with it. -- Flynne at February 6, 2014 6:10 AM

Flynne,

Thank you for getting to the point I have been making for a while. Here is the content from another blog that I left in response to a logic free moment:

You’re right cliff, you didn’t mention Universal Background Checks.

What you did do is drop into the clearly labeled ENDO gun blog which probably has more than one Second Amendment supporter, and popped off with bad grammar and punctuation using your First Amendment rights with a vague statement:

"Gun laws dont work because criminals dont follow gun laws they are criminals where is your common sense”. Like the morons they are they have no clue that their arguments bring shame to homo sapiens every where"

This statement is so vacuous and uninformed that it is hard to make sense of it. My interpretation of it was “We need to “Do something!” and any law will help no matter how badly formed.” You pretty much also insulted everyone by saying we’re morons for not supporting more laws.

Since my mind reading license expired a few years back, and I haven’t bothered renewing it, I took an example of recent bills that were thought of.

Now if you want to come up with something more than “pass a law” that won’t infringe on your or my civil rights, please feel free to let us know. Until then go back to playing with your Wang in the basement.

Any time that you see such hysterical "pass a law" crap you need to ask why is the law needed? Or as an in justice is prosecuted ask "Why dows that law exist?" And I encourage that of any rational person.