10

Is it moral for an Objectivist to invest in gun manufacturer stocks?

Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
103 comments | Share | Flag

A week or two ago I asked whether or not I was too late to invest in the stocks of gun manufacturers, some of which were up 70 or 80% in 2015. I probably am too late to profit from such an investment.

When I think of guns, I think of my own self-defense. However, if I invest in gun manufacturer stock prices going up as a result of the increasing chaos brought on by the looter/moocher cabal, am I violating the Objectivist principle regarding initiation of the use of force? Am I supporting statist thugs? I want to be non-contradictory about this, and yet profit immensely by my support of the 2nd Amendment.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 8 years, 9 months ago
    Not to be snarky but is that a real question?

    First ancillary benefits to moochers are irrelevant. The key point is are you benefitting yourself and using rational self-interest, i.e. is that investment harming you personally now or in the future?

    I own plenty of guns and ammo, have a concealed carry permit as does my wife. I also do not own any stock in gun or ammo manufacturers, although I should have dumped every dime into them back when Oblabbermouth and Moose were elected. I would have quadrupled my money.

    You have a strategic choice coming up. Buy gun stocks now, avoid ones being sued right now. Sell on Oct 31, then if Hillary is elected, buy options and lots of them that close in February or March when she takes office If Trump is elected, short them since the feeling may be that people will not have to buy and stock up for fear of gun control and their prices will fall.

    I am getting ready to spend about $10,000 in options to do just that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jjthompson1 8 years, 9 months ago
    I am having a great deal of difficulty in processing this as a generalized moral issue. Guns are a tool. A versatile tool that is reatively easy to use but a tool none the less. Money is a tool of sorts as well. Drug dealers and arms merchants use money as a tool to achieve their objectives, should we be morally obligated to reject money as well? Do not bankers finance gun manufactures and chemical manufactures and drug companies that churn out compounds they can surmise will be circulated in black markets? How a tool is utilized, for defense, for sport, for sustenance or for agression is in the hands and minds of its possessor. Focusing on the mental condition of these demented aggressors is where these sorts of debates should be taken.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like my HP carbine, but their handguns are awful , they don't bid because they are non-competitive. The carbine just doesn't have enough takedown power, only uses a handgun round.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 8 years, 9 months ago
    I'm not a looter or a moo her by any stretch, but have many, many firearms. I'm also a stockholder in Smith & Wesson Holdings (swh). Most firearms manufacturers are privately held. Swh is also in the top 0.5% of well-run and profitable manufacturing businesses in the US and arguably belongs in the consumer sector for any portfolio.

    I just increased my position 2 weeks ago when California banned AR15s beginning Jan 1 (and my legal pre-ban AR15s will skyrocket in value). I expect SWH to have a bumper of a 3rd and 4th quarter with probably a million sold in CA alone. Every millennial is out shopping for at least a pre-ban receiver if not a whole rifle.

    How does private ownership increase chaos? The republican voting high gun ownership areas have had zero problems.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by brkssb 8 years, 9 months ago
    Ask the same question about [the morality of investing] in a pharmaceutical company which produces birth control pills [as well as anti-cancer drugs]. Or what used to be "Big Blue" in the 1950s, a computer system used for business, individual productivity, and warfare today. Are you guilty of initiating force by voting for an elected official who drags us into or continues a war?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 8 years, 9 months ago
    Of course not. Remember the phrase "guns don't kill"? Increased gun sales do not lead to increased "chaos". Statism does however - with or without guns.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
    I'd say it is as moral now to invest in semiautomatic weapons as it would have been for an colonist to invest in flintlocks back in 1776.
    Is it a good idea? Maybe but be ready to sell in November if just to protect your capital.
    Thanks to the Commander-Of-Grief and the evil hag, lately I've been visiting gun stores like I never have before. You could say what I'm investing in is being armed to the teeth.
    Yesterday I bought two shoot all day Glock magazines for a 9mm carbine my son is PC-order putting together for me, I finally found a holster that fits my 357 and I'm thinking about a Beretta Tomcat for a back gun. My son was studying medium-sized Sig Sauer pistols for a future purchase while I was there.
    A small Sig is my concealed carry pocket pistol.
    Should Trump be elected? No. The buying panic should subside.
    Should Shillary be elected? No. Anti-depressants, hankies and paper tissues that come in boo-hoo boxes may be the only good investments. I'd stock up on survival eats also.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To the best of my recollection, none of the American firearms manufacturers deliberately exclude sales to government personnel. There are some, like Hi-Point (Ohio manufacturer of reliable low cost guns) that don't bid on military or law enforcement contracts because of the excessive overhead cost involved, but they don't monitor to deny individual sales to government personnel.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 9 months ago
    I have bought guns themselves as an investment. With Obama and Hillary out there as salesmen for the gun manufacturers, how can I lose?

    As people become more and more disenchanted with the establishment, more are going to flip out and do mass killings. Bound to happen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If the dilemna is over whether or not they sell to the government, it really is minor to the issue what product is being sold. That the government is the purchaser is your prime issue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is a difference in both kind and order of magnitude, but many weapons manufacturers have both a private and a government component to them. If we were talking about companies that sell only personal self-defense weapons, then there is really no moral dilemma, but it usually is not so clear cut.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If there are, they would likely be small manufacturers unable to support the volumes the military/governmental supply chain is looking for.

    Even the large manufacturers have trouble with maintaining production for wartime volumes. For example Colt subcontracting out M-16 production under their prime contract.

    Edited to add the second paragraph and example.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 years, 9 months ago
    Yes it is moral...however if you invested in a gun manufacturer that produced guns exclusively for isis or something like that...you would be unethical to say the least.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A nuclear weapon is not an individual weapon, so a difference in both kind and order of magnitude.

    We did not state that as an initial parameter, but an important factor.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Brings us full circle back to the actions as the determinant doesn't it. Further in your example above the actions causing your quandry are for the production more than the product itself.

    Related moral question to ponder.

    Two military actions that destroy two cities.
    One uses a mix of high explosive and incendiaries, both conventional munitions.
    The other uses a single nuclear weapon.

    If one is considered "good" and the other "bad" which is which and most importantly why?
    Is either "good"?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You probably think that the logical fallacy revolves around the idea that any weapon can be used for self-defense. I will not argue with you there, but are there any weapons manufacturers that sell exclusively to private citizens?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I once worked with nuclear weapons, and decided I could no longer morally do so. Yes, a nuclear weapon can be used for national self-defense, but can a company get a contract for that without being a crony crapitalist? Probably not anymore.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Logical fallacy

    ANY weapon can be used for self defense. Which tool is proper for the job depends on the situation.

    For example...

    0-15 yards, handgun or shotgun
    10 - 50 yards submachine gun or semi auto equivalent
    Over 50 yards rifle, assault rifle, etc
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It really doesn't matter to us. In objectivism the thrid is apply your own morals and ethics. Not ours. The only that counts is you. No one to forgive you. No one to applaud. no one to absolve. Just you.

    As for me guns are tools for several purposes. Self Defense, The need for food. And when you realize the best defense is a good offense for attacking - who ever provoked you. They tools of the weapons category first and uses like target shooting are to hone skills nothing more and nothing less. There is a false premise in your initial theory. See if you can find it. There is a premise in my statement as well. But given the 'nature' of weapons and that includes baseball bats it's lions, and tigers and people that think only certain lives matter. Oh my? What is the first thing you think of when you see a red tie? Nice target http://marker.It's a sign of stupidity. And a blue tie? The enemy. Either one in a group? Target rich environment.

    That's my moral values at work not yours.

    As Sylvester so eloquently stated. They drew first blood. That doesn't mean i ihave to draw blood. It does mean it's open season.

    I had to take a later bus so what the hell....why not join in for a bit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 9 months ago
    Thank you for helping me out with this choice. Guns are tools. I guess part of my concern is over the weapons a company would produce that are not for personal defense. Often those are produced to meet government contracts, in which case I would want to be careful to avoid contradiction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Would the same be true if the company produced no weapons of self-defense? Probably not. I agree with you, but I must pick carefully.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago
    jim, I don't see the contradiction. A gun is no different than a screwdriver, an ice pick, a hammer, a piano string, a piece of rope--they're tools and they've all been utilized to kill. We've all seen Westerns in which a six-shooter was used as a hammer.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo