The Donahue and Levitt study suggests legalized abortions could be the primary cause.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levi...
Condensed version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legaliz...
Seems more viable than gun ownership levels.
I think that study was discredited. Isn't that the one the Freakonomics stuff was based on?
I think that study was discredited. Isn't that the one the Freakonomics stuff was based on?
Donohue and Levitt (authors of the linked paper) are the authors of Freakanomics.
Yep pretty well discredited.
Resist gun control - get a Beretta factory
Italian gun maker Beretta said Wednesday that Tennessee's support for gun rights was a major factor in its decision to build a manufacturing and research facility in the Nashville suburb of Gallatin.
Gun rights were "the first criteria for deciding to even consider a state," said Jeff Reh, a member of Beretta USA Corp.'s board of directors.
Resist gun control - get a Beretta factory
Italian gun maker Beretta said Wednesday that Tennessee's support for gun rights was a major factor in its decision to build a manufacturing and research facility in the Nashville suburb of Gallatin.Gun rights were "the first criteria for deciding to even consider a state," said Jeff Reh, a member of Beretta USA Corp.'s board of directors.
What a load of BS. That's just blatant pandering. Anyone that thinks businesses select where to build factories based on how much people like them is delusional.
Nevin73 wrote:Resist gun control - get a Beretta factory
Italian gun maker Beretta said Wednesday that Tennessee's support for gun rights was a major factor in its decision to build a manufacturing and research facility in the Nashville suburb of Gallatin.Gun rights were "the first criteria for deciding to even consider a state," said Jeff Reh, a member of Beretta USA Corp.'s board of directors.What a load of BS. That's just blatant pandering. Anyone that thinks businesses select where to build factories based on how much people like them is delusional.
Oh good, I wasn't the only one thinking that. I can't imagine a CEO saying "Well, we'd like to take advantage of the lost cost of getting materials to our manufacturing facilities, but you're not as fanatical about gun rights as we'd like, so we'll go pay 5x more for that service in a place that is all about our products."
The only justification I can see is that a state fanatical about guns would bulldoze through any opposition to creating a zero tax environment for a gun factory.
From a different article:
Beretta says it chose Tennessee for its business climate, tax rate and skilled workers."Manufacturing, from our point of view, is the most critical part of our job," said Franco Gussalli Beretta.
The company isn't specifically saying what its new jobs will pay. Most of those hired, they say, will be Tennesseans.
And the exact incentive package is still being finalized, but it's expected to include tax credits and assistance on infrastructure.
So we can either believe that Beretta chose Tennessee because it *really* liked guns or that it chose Tennessee because it was an "at will" employment state with a low tax rate that was willing to give the company millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars of tax breaks and other incentives.
So we can either believe that Beretta chose Tennessee because it *really* liked guns or that it chose Tennessee because it was an "at will" employment state with a low tax rate that was willing to give the company millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars of tax breaks and other incentives.
ding ding ding. Winner!
bang bang bang. Winner!
Had to be done.
Well, plus they know that TN isn't going to drop the boom on them. Opening a gun factory in, say, New York, might be a really bad idea, as the state might decide to shut them down.
I think they might have chosen Tennessee for exactly the reason they claim. Even if it's more expensive to operate, knowing that it won't have its investment arbitrarily confiscated is a powerful attractant to any business.
When has New York (or any state for that matter) ever taken over a gun manufacturing company and shut them down, Malor?
"Shut them down" as in make it an untenable environment in which to do business. Y'know, kinda like what states like Tennessee are doing to abortion providers.
"Shut them down" as in make it an untenable environment in which to do business. Y'know, kinda like what states like Tennessee are doing to abortion providers.
No, he clearly said "shut them down" and doubled down on that statement by saying that gun manufacturers have to fear having their business "arbitrarily confiscated" by the state.
What Tennessee and other states are doing to abortion providers is legislating extremely onerous requirements, some of which are brilliantly (in a sick and twisted way) Catch-22 in nature.
Nothing remotely the same is happening to gun manufacturers in New York or anywhere else.
In fact, I would posit that nothing remotely the same could ever happen to gun manufacturers because the gun lobby would mobilize and immediately shut down any attempt by a state legislature to more stringently regulate their businesses. After all, we are talking about a lobby that has enough juice to get Congress to permanently grant gun manufacturers (and dealers) permanent immunity from liability so strong-arming some state hayseeds should be a walk in the park.
Yeah you are more likely to see the gun lobby shut down the state. There's no way the state would ever be able to shut down a gun manufacturer.
I had no idea a gun manufacturer could only sell in the state where their factory is located. Strange.
I had no idea a gun manufacturer could only sell in the state where their factory is located. Strange.
I assume this is sarcasm?
I had no idea a gun manufacturer could only sell in the state where their factory is located. Strange.
Thanks for pointing out just how {ableist slur} the idea that Baretta picked Tennessee because the state was so friendly to firearms actually is.
And I'll assume that because you didn't respond to my question that you couldn't find any example anywhere of a state regulating firearms manufacturers in an especially onerous manner like they do with abortion clinics.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:I had no idea a gun manufacturer could only sell in the state where their factory is located. Strange.
Thanks for pointing out just how {ableist slur} the idea that Baretta picked Tennessee because the state was so friendly to firearms actually is.
And I'll assume that because you didn't respond to my question that you couldn't find any example anywhere of a state regulating firearms manufacturers in an especially onerous manner like they do with abortion clinics.
I think you meant to direct this venom at Malor, not Spacepolice?
SpacePPoliceman has doubtless done or said something worthy of venom. Or hugs. Whichever.
I think you meant to direct this venom at Malor, not Spacepolice?
My apologies, SpacePPolicman. sh*tty week, less sleep than is good for me, and poor reading comprehension skills has made me a grumpy man with an itchy "Post Comment" finger.
No harm, no foul--yes, that was sarcasm, and no, this won't convince me to start using emoticons or sarcasm tags.
SpacePPoliceman has doubtless done or said something worthy of venom. Or hugs. Whichever.
I did do a lot of venomous hugging yesterday.
Well, at the same time, Magpul is officially moving to both Wyoming and Texas in response to Colorado's recent changes in gun law.
That's quite a political statement for them to make, uprooting all those employees, or firing them, to prove their point. Most whiskey in the US is made in dry counties, so it's not like irony is a foreign concept in American business.
Good riddance to them. I hope it costs millions to make that petulant move. The only sad part are the people that will now be out of work because of this company's childish act.
I had no idea a gun manufacturer could only sell in the state where their factory is located. Strange.
But they can only sell things they're allowed to manufacture.
I had no idea a gun manufacturer could only sell in the state where their factory is located. Strange.But they can only sell things they're allowed to manufacture.
I know it's not your thing, but since I just got caught in the crossfire of frustration stemming from your favoring rhetorical fancifulness over reality, I'd appreciate some real world citation. In this case, I feel it's particularly important, as the gun industrial complex has really, really been stoking the paranoia furnace with said rhetorical fancifulness, unmoored by reality, as a means of maximizing their profits.
The thing with Magpul is that their products can't be sold in the gun shops right down the street from the factory, thanks to new laws in Colorado and Denver. That's what really bugged them - there's nothing that prevents them from selling anywhere else in the country, but they wanted their employees to be able to legally purchase their goods, if those employees wanted.
Now, there's a couple hundred factory workers out of jobs in Colorado, but new positions being opened in Texas and Wyoming for their new locations.
I'd appreciate some real world citation.
There are any number of products that have previously been legal, and have been made illegal to manufacture subsequently.
Whether or not those substances were okay to manufacture or not is actually not relevant to the discussion. What actually matters, from the point of view of someone building a factory, is whether or not that investment will pay off. And if manufacturing the product that the factory was built for becomes illegal, that's a loss of capital, possibly a giant loss of capital.
An example: they made the cyanide extraction process for gold mining illegal up in one of the Northern states, um, eight or ten years ago. So, suddenly, a huge swath of proven gold reserves of that state became inaccessible. You could get to it, but not profitably, so it might as well not even be there. This outright destroyed at least one promising company, maybe more.
Whatever you might think about the pollution or whatever, the simple fact is that capitalists invest money to make money, so the safety of the political climate for their investment is always a component of their decision making, and sometimes the key component.
Pages