Figuring out where to draw the line is exactly my dilemma. Your example of Raytheon is a poignant one. I have half a dozen former students employed there that I still interact with occasionally. As an engineer, I am trained to not even get close to the borderline when it comes to safety and ethics. Doing so with regard to investing could get me to paint myself into a corner.

+1 LOL

Sig-Sauer is under consideration. Having taught mechanical engineers for 18 years, I have former students working at most of the gun manufacturers.

I have a vested interest in Sig-Sauer, relative is a design engineer there (full disclosure)

Supporting guns also supports the individual's ability to fight oppressors.

Very true. The irrational fear of nuclear power has stunted that industry for decades and, looks like it will continue stunting it for more decades.

We're doomed by the ignorance and stupidity of those around us.

You have to consider where you draw lines.

For instance, Raytheon is a defense contractor, a member of the Military Industrial Complex. Raytheon has other divisions not concerned with the mil space, like Amana appliances. Do you not buy an Amana microwave because they are owned by Raytheon?

Thanks, Technocracy.

True

My point exactly, listening to the media though, you would think the sky is falling.

I agree with you on how much of the objection to anything nuclear, whether nuclear weapons, nuclear power, or nuclear anything, is irrational fear.

Most people know virtually nothing about nuclear anything. Since they have no actual knowledge, reason has nothing to judge with so emotion jumps into the gap.

Here in Florida, there is a substantial chance of all of those happening. One of my grad students got bitten by a shark last year. The damage required a couple of stitches. A faculty colleague at my university is one of the leading lightning experts in the world. We have lightning-based power interruptions about twice a month here. And a gator is sunning himself on the pond shoreline across the street from me.

What does that have to do with your comment or my response?

That might be a company worth considering. Thanks.

Statistically, you have a better chance of being eaten by a shark, alligator attack, or struck by lightening than a mass shooter event.

Crony capitalism is the government's definite preference at this point. Hence the continual growth of law and regulation to force this on us.

Until last week, although the Dallas Metro area is more liberal than it used to be, it's full of gun owners who vote. Although Denver is more liberal than it used to be, Denver was full of gun owners who vote.

The Dallas massacre was carried out by an angry black man who'd probably converted to Islam while serving in Afghanistan. The Denver (theater) massacre was carried out by a mentally disturbed white man who'd failed in his graduate program.

Newtown is probably a liberal place, full of people who vote and it's got gun shops so, there are probably gun owners in Newtown.

The Newtown (Sandyhook) massacre was carried out by a mentally ill white man who ranted incoherent ideas on radio talk shows.

Omaha is full of conservative gun owners who vote.

The Omaha massacre was carried out by a mentally ill teenager who wanted to be famous.

I think the common threads in our mass shootings are mental illness and Islam. I don't think I can tie them to political stance or rates of gun ownership.

Statistics indicate rates of gun ownership have an inverse relationship with rates of violent crime.

So, guns deter rational criminals but, not mentally ill or politically motivated people.

Quite true.

I once entered into that discussion with a group of Canadian leftists who said Hiroshima was genocide but, the fire bombing of Tokyo that killed far more civilians was OK.

I began to think many objections to nuclear weapons are simply selfish fear. Some nuclear weapons opponents can imagine nukes going off in their cities but, can't imagine an enemy nation fire bombing Toronto or Seattle. Therefore we must ban nuclear weapons but, small arms, artillery, tanks, and conventional bombs are OK.

Believe it or not, most of our military and police small arms are made overseas, in Europe. I'm not sure why but, it's been a long time since a US manufacturer has won a small arms contract.

Most Colt and Ruger products are sold to the public.

I would say, after reading and watching AS, that you should have no problem investing in the stocks of firearm manufacturers. Guns are not primarily used to kill people, I have fired thousands of rounds and not once have I shot at a person. If AS is upon us, you'll want the hardware those companies produce, not just the stocks!

Initiation of force is far from the only consideration.

If you do a little bit of further reading, you'll notice that Colt, the company as opposed to Samuel Colt, has continued Samuel Colt's looter ways.

The question speaks for itself, regardless of what you meant. "Is it moral to invest in gun manuf.s?"
Nothing about the oppressors is relevant here; you are not initiating force, you are not causing more chaos by buying stock, you could not be supporting them, etc. Cause and effect....

PTR left Connecticut several years ago. They had been considering moving to my county in Florida, but my county wouldn't give them enough tax incentives. I just read that they went to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

http://www.fitsnews.com/2015/06/26/mo...