One of the most florid business in Italy is the production and the import-export of guns. Beretta (see intimidating picture below) is one of the world leaders in Guns manufacturing. We export luxury pistols even to China. All the economy is recessive but guns industry.
Still, not like the U.S., and like most of Europe, in Italy guns are not very much widespread. Well, of course they are an everyday tool among Camorra 'Ndranghet Mafia boys, but aside of that only few fanatics, paranoids, jewelers, hunters have guns.

Now I find this blog where a blogger Fabio refers to one article of the italian constitution I didn't know of, that ensures to anyone the right to use guns (and only guns, "armi da fuoco") for self-defense. He then uses as an excuse for his pro-guns argument the recent violence we all heard of on the media, perpetrated on a student of the University in Bologna, to argue that, since the American constitution always worked well, it's pretty logical the italian constitution imitated it both in gun possessing and freedom of speech; he argues that in such situations of violence a stronger application of that article of the constitution is very much desirable.
In other words he would greet a larger circulation of guns in Italy, as in the U.S.

All right. Let's demolish this argument once and for good. And without even touching the whole Columbine routine.

Coming to the pretext, violence on women and the recent example happened in Bologna: it's still to see where and how guns would have helped. Aside of the fact that there are other means for self-defense, as all those anti-rape sprays and stuff, I bet in the US the rate of violence against women is just the same as in Italy if not worse: guns do not help.

Why? Simple: because men hold guns, not women. And with a gun violence and rape are quite easier.

Let's review the scene together. Here's how the things went in Bologna: She climbs down the bus, he follows her to a darker corner, grabs her from behind, drag her across the street to a solitary spot, she cry for help, cars pass sounding the horn without even slowing, in a matter of minutes she is being beaten and raped.
Now, let's say guns are widespread among the population in Italy and replay the scene: who do you think has a gun of the two?
She climbs down the bus, he follows her, points the gun at her threatening to kill her, and, as we said, the rape is even easier.

I think my confutation could easily end here, no need to add more carne al fuoco. But I'll be generous.

Guns may help this or that innocent man to win his self-defense battle, but will always work against women. Particularly in Italy. Here, everything that gives more strength and self-reliance to women is seen as a sly demolition to men's virility.
Paranoid men see as a menace "painless" childbirth, "painless" abortion, self-defense items or trainings, challenging women, women who have opinions, women that make it alone. Old story. They keep the guns for themselves.

Sometimes women too use weapons: more than guns, non-ordinary weapons. At home, where most of the violence against them is perpetrated, by their husbands and boyfriends, without witnesses, one uses what is at hand.
But there is no way one can react to violence at home as any robbed shopkeeper, shooting at the first intimidating act: first it has to be knocked over an entire world of habits, solidifcated fears, chained relationships, traditions, money, affections, etc.
And when the exasperation really reaches a peak, there's no need for a legal gun (plus that would be "his" gun): but a blade would do, a kitchen knife, a cutter, a screwdriver, an axe, the car, scissors, poison, a rope, fire.

All those are good self-defense weapons, but, strangely enough, no guns supporter, no constitutionalist considers them. And no one makes Associations in Support of the Domestic Poison for Self-Defense.