It is no more immoral to invest in the manufacture of guns than to invest in the manufacture of shovels generally speaking.

For the first 50 yards...

With respect to the carbine (and all the pistol ammo carbines have the knockdown issue you reference), I'd be curious to see how it would do with the Liberty Civil Defense ammo. Out of a 4" pistol barrel the 45 ACP round sends a 78 grain slug downrange at 2100 fps, so I'd guess the carbine barrel would add a couple hundred fps to that, which is a respectable amount of energy on target.

Not sure how that happened, but everyone can have slide/grip problems with self feeders without a beavertail. The Colt 1902 32 ACP was my torturer, nipping me more than once before I traded it.

I believe both were used in World War II, on the
same enemy, and by the same side.

It is not only moral for an Objectivist to invest in
the stocks of gun manufacturers, it is also moral
for an Objectivist to manufacture guns himself. And sell them. What kind of crazy question is this? So people might misuse the guns? Well, people might misuse kitchen knives. And people might misuse food. Somebody might
take a legitimate food product and sneak it into
the food supply of a person allergic to that food.
And people might misuse electronic appliances
and make a bomb. Come on!

Good, but what's the "first rule of holes"? Is that like Hegel's organic state wholes?

I was posing that as an example to illustrate that some defense contractors produce consumer products. In response to Minorliberator's last sentence about not wanting to invest in the Military Industrial complex.

I have nothing against defense contractors at all.
Remember the first rule of holes.

You raised the question of not buying an Amana microwave because they are owned by defense contractor Raytheon. Why would that even come up if there weren't something wrong implied about defense work?

Some of those who worked in advance technology at Raytheon, like Eli Brookner and his group, found it a very good place to work. But like any big corporation it's understandable that others would find it "neither the best nor the worst". I have found it best to avoid the big corporations.

I never said it was. I was simply using them as an example of how diversified companies are. In fact I worked at Raytheon through most of the 90s. Neither the best nor the worst place I have ever worked.

Being a defense contractor is not evil. Raytheon has done a lot of valuable work in defense, including a lot of radar and control systems. There is some unethical behavior to various degrees in any large corporation. Rearden, Dagny and Galt were abstractions representing ideals; most people, especially in today's culture, are mixed, combining different ethical or nonethical behaviors with degrees of productive achievement.

We live in the world as it is and make our choices according to what is possible. We can't stop buying anything, including appliances, from anyone or any company that might have done something we disapprove of. That is not Objectivism and leads to the "drop out" "go Galt" mentality with its foot stomping frozen absolutes and floating abstractions that misrepresent Galt. Ayn Rand did not argue for going on strike as a means of social change or shunning the markets.

The entire history of human civilization has had a mixture of different kinds of people. We all have our personal limits and act accordingly, choosing the best kind of life we can in cultural circumstances we did not make and cannot control. If the best had not continued on we would still be in the Dark Ages.

I did not "twist" what you said. Please keep your snide personal "as usual" "suit your own [unnamed] agenda" smears out of this forum. It is not rational discussion. Neither is your gratuitous, newly introduced accusation that gun manufacturers, now switched to "arms", are "pushing" an unnamed "agenda in concert with looters" as a supposed response. I am not "sorely mistaken" and you don't tell me what I think. Your post was confused, and combined your quest for knowing what to do worded as what is moral for an "Objectivist", which you are not, to do. If you want rational discussion of these matters then please get the hostile chip off your shoulder and stop misrepresenting.

Used mine once, the slide almost took the skin web between my thumb and index finger off.

I agree the HP handguns are ugly as hell, too bulky for concealment, and look even worse when you disassemble them for cleaning. Their grips are too slick for easy handling, and the magazines give the gun the appearance of a cordless drill.

However, the HP guns have a reputation for being one of the most dependable firearms on the market. No matter what you feed them, they reliably put rounds downrange, with respectable self defense range accuracy. The company has an unconditional warranty, repairing or replacing a malfunctioning gun, even for a secondary buyer.

As usual, you twisted what I said to suit your own agenda. I never said that the guns or the gun manufacturers are responsible for the chaos. I blamed that on the looters and moochers. Regarding the "initiation of force", if you think that arms manufacturers don't push an agenda in concert with government looters, you are sorely mistaken.

The question is based on a confused notion of the principle of 'initiation of force', misapplied as it often is by those who don't understand and oppose Ayn Rand's philosophy.

The surge in those buying guns to defend themselves against the growing chaos and statist threats to disarm them are not responsible for the chaos and the threats, and neither are the gun manufacturers. Rising gun stock prices and financial success of the manufacturers providing a service are a consequence, not a cause of the chaos and threats.

Organizations are forced to play on the field presented to them. The alternative is to go on strike. The shareholders will seldom allow that.

So true.

Decisions like these are always difficult for an Objectivist because we stubbornly insist on taking context into account when making rational judgements. Even with an example like Raytheon, or other members of the Military Industrial Complex, they would certainly be required in a moral, defensive war. The only answer to what we have now is much stricter, infinitely more strict, oversight and "transparency", a term that is a joke now, on the part of the government, along with private citizens groups empowered to look into things with more tools things like the FOIA. No simple answer there from me.

Thanks, Thoritsu.

Yes, first your investment (in the case you cite) is taking advantage of market conditions you didn't influence, but can predict. Second, your investment will do little of nothing to change the stock price. Third, investing is not changing the conditions relative to anyone, except others making the opposite bet. There is no ethics quandary here.

You and others have helped. I know that it's not the gun. It is the user of the gun. Working through all of the consequences, intended or unintended, of one's actions or inactions, is part of how I train my students, so I had better do it myself, too. Yes, I have to make decisions MYSELF. Delaying this one probably cost me tonight, in light of what just happened in France.

While I do deliberate in decisionmaking, I always ask myself whether or not I can live with my decision. If the answer is no, then I know that is not the right decision. Fortunately, the rate-limiting step in the decisionmaking process is the acquisition of information, not any second guessing.

I do Wanenmacher's, the world's largest gun show every year. Demand had definitely cooled prior to Orlando. inventories were up and prices were down. It appeared to me gun demand had been sated. After all, PEW says we now own 8 guns apiece, on average so, you're right, if Hillary wins, November could be the time to buy but, if Trump wins, November could be the time to sell.

My significant other has carried a Tomcat for over a decade. It's light, easily concealed, extremely reliable and, at short range a well placed 32 JHP will do the job. She loves it.

I put a set of Crimson Trace grips on it for her. It's easy to put a full magazine inside a 2" circle at 25'. It's not usually legal to shoot people more than 40 or 50 feet away because, unless they're shooting at you it's hard to prove they are an imminent threat.

If only the grips were a bit longer I'd consider carrying one myself. Instead I've got an XDS45 which is heavier and less comfortable and I'm not quite as accurate with it but, at least I can get my full hand on the extended magazine.

As a gun is nothing more than a tool, you could ask the same question about investing in Stanley or Milwaukee during construction booms. A hammer or an ax is just as lethal if miss used yet extremely useful when used properly. Therefore unless the gun manufacturer markets expressly to criminals I see no moral connondrum.

Well, that is a heck of thing to try and work your way through JB.

The twisted and incestuous relationships between companies, divisions of companies, and the myriad products they produce will be one giant exercise in frustration.

Much of what we post here will be frustrating as well. In the end its something only you can decide.

Like every other decision YOU have to make.

I hope we have been of some help, but it would not surprise me if we made the dilemna worse.