Divestment of firearm manufacturer stocks?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Feb 17, 2013.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    Divestment efforts have begun in several places. Here is one news story:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/california-treasurer-seeks-to-expand-gun-divestment-plan.html

    Is this the Next Big Thing? Note that the proposal only applies to companies manufacturing weapons and accessories that are illegal in California, not all weapons.
     
  2. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #2
    Waste of everyone's time considering most gun companies are small and privately held.
     
  3. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #3
    Yeah this is just a politicized, feel-good thing. It's not like those companies were/are doing anything wrong, and they also sell weapons to LEO. If they were intent on actually harming them, then they should just quit buying guns for cops.

    But then again, this is just for show. Somebody else will just buy up their stocks anyway.
     
  4. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #4
    I fully support the State of California's (my employer's) efforts.

    Money talks.
     
  5. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #5

    Record gun sales across America, money sure does talk ;)
     
  6. Technarchy, Feb 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2013

    Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #6
    Last gun show I went to was picked dry a couple of weeks ago.
     
  7. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #7
    I wonder if it extends to manufacturers of anything that's banned or illegal in California. I don't know what those things would be, which is why I'm wondering. After all, if it's an ethics issue, and the criterion is "illegal in CA", then why stop at firearms or their accessories?

    This wouldn't be a first for "ethical investing", either. There was a certain amount of it in the days of apartheid South Africa. And I vaguely recall a similar attempt for semiconductor manufacturers whose commodity chips ended up being used in land mines. I don't think that one went anywhere, though.
     
  8. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #8
    Idk why those same interests aren't divesting in corporations like McDonalds, or tobacco, which are responsible for, well let's just say it's a lot of deaths and leave it at that.
     
  9. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #9
    Generally speaking when I eat a Big Mac, it doesn't cause somebody else to gain weight. It pretty much only affects me. There is a difference.
     
  10. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #10
    When I buy a 30 round mag, it only affects me.
     
  11. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #11
    It does have the potential to affect others since the purpose of a gun is to kill people. A Hamburger is food that you consume. It may not be the healtiest thing to consume, but I guarantee that a Big Mac that I order will not cause you to gain one ounce of weight or increase your caloric count unless you take it from me and eat it instead of me (unlikely to happen).

    Bullets are not intended to do anything else but be fired by a gun and that can cause harm. You might not harm anybody, but that might not be true of another person who buys ammunition.
     
  12. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #12
    This strikes me as more symbolic than anything.
     
  13. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #13
    That is not the purpose of any gun I have that can take a 30 round mag.
     
  14. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #14
    Hopefully this will backfire on them.

    I love the way some firearm manufacturers and distributors are refusing to sell to ban states, regardless if the buyer is an LEO or not, and hopefully Magpul will pull its manufacturing out of CO if that state goes full retard with gun control.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    How would it backfire?

    Gun stocks soar?

    California left behind in economic boom?
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    You love that because ... ?
     
  17. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #17
    Well, I love it because if I'm a company and you're just going to use politics to ban my products and stuff, I just won't sell to you.

    It's great because it's an illustration of business freedom
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18
    Responsible investing should be the goal of all retirement funds. Private equity and armaments should not be allowed by public retirement funds.

    Besides., it only makes sense. Paranoid purchases have pushed stock prices to all time highs which are unsustainable. They'll be plummeting before long.
     
  19. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #19
    could say the same thing about any company
     
  20. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    It is a great time to sell.
     
  21. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #21
    It is the purpose of a gun. I don't care about the individual firing it. You might not be a killer but not everyone is you. A gun can kill another person. A big Mac is food and about the only way you can kill someone with it is by choking someone by it.

    Bullets are meant to be fired by a gun for the purpose of killing something. Bullets are not intended to just be decoration. One of the principal rules of gun handling is that you don't point it at something you do not intend to destroy.
     
  22. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #22
    Then why do I have hundreds of rounds of ammo labeled "target" loads?:p

    And fine, if you want to go that route...they are designed to kill animals. So the only way you are going to be harmed by a bullet intended for an animal is to jump your silly ass in front of the animal to save it.
     
  23. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #23
    Again. I don't care about you. You are not what my comments address and are nothing more than antidotal. You do not speak for and cannot represent gun ownership or usage. Just because you are a responsible gun owner doesn't mean squat against the fact that guns are intended to destroy other things.

    And You cannot say that those "target rounds" will never be used in any other way.

    They are designed to destroy things. Saying that they are designed to kill animals is sort of silly. They can be used to kill animals - but they are also very frequently used (more than not I bet) to kill human beings. Stop trying to argue you as a template. It doesn't change the fact that guns and bullets are designed to be shot and and destroy things.
     
  24. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #24
    Are you actually implying that there are more humans shot in a year than animals by hunters?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

    You are exactly the kind of person that the gun rights people worry about.
     
  25. pdjudd, Feb 18, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2013

    pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #25
    Hardly. I am actually a proponent of responsible gun ownership - something that sane gun rights proponents probably share. And a responsible gun owner is not doing to deny that the manufactured purpose of guns is to destroy things. That is a fact. Guns are intended by their design to destroy things. That is a solid fact. You simply cannot compare them to a hamburger that you consume where the manufactured intent is to make you full. They are not comparable things.

    ETA: And for the record, I think the proposition in the OP is ridiculous. I would rather the gun lobby tone things down a bit, but that's about it.
     

Share This Page