Yes, guns are designed to kill, but they actually have a secondary purpose. As with nuclear weapons, they act as a very strong deterrent and can actually prevent violent crime from happening. Many videos on Youtube where a gun was used to de-escalate a potentially violent situation. I think there are legitimate uses for guns even when killing is involved. I believe that people have a right to self-defense. If a bad guy is killed by a good guy defending him/herself or others, I have no problem with that. It's unfortunate, but I'd rather see the bad guy die than the good. I would argue that certain cultures in America are way more violent than what you'll find in other developed countries. They tend to be clustered in areas where you don't want to find yourself at 11 PM on a Friday night. I wish we could just get rid of all the guns, nuclear weapons, and speed bumps. However, if the US government tried to round up and destroy all guns, they would only get guns from the good people. Bad people will never give up their guns. So in that case, we'd end up with a higher percentage of guns in the hands of bad people.
Actually it's been a thing at funds for years to offer investors the ability to exclude alcohol and tobacco stocks from their portfolio, a lot of endowments and pensions also exclude fossil fuel. And yes, it does make a difference if a percentage of the investing public divests from certain companies, it makes their cost of capital higher because they're tapping a smaller supply pool. That's econ 101.
I have heard about funds and endowments excluding fossil fuels, but never heard of any fund that excludes alcohol. Although I suppose that there is a market for that (Mormons and other religions that exclude alcohol). You're right that it will increase the cost of capital, but only to the extent that these funds become a major component of the market. Most 401k's and pensions just invest in broad market. Institutions just care about making money. I suspect that a lot of fund managers would invest in really bad stuff as long as it allows them to beat their benchmarks / make more money. The dems had full control of all three branches of govt back in 2008. If they wanted to, they could have banned the AR-15 and all assault rifles. They didn't because they knew it would affect votes in the future. That's all the politicians care about...staying in power.
Well if you want to talk gun control..... I grew up in a rural area and did a full military career so I've been using guns my whole life. I also despise the NRA and strongly feel the second amendment guarantees you nothing more than the right to bear the same muskets that were available when it was conceived. That said, I think the focus of the shiny object of assault rifles is idiotic and generally comes from people who know nothing about guns and have never fired one in their life. I agree that people kill people, the only problem with guns is that it makes it possible to kill a whole bunch of them in a short amount of time with little chance to stop it, in a way that matches and knives and cars just don't have. So if you want to control something, control high capacity magazines which serve little to no function in any legitimate gun use. It's not perfect, but it limits the damage one can do with a gun in a far more meaningful way than banning a class of guns based on style rather than capability which is idiotically naive. But if the gun control lobby was really smart they wouldn't attempt to outlaw anything, they'd just tax the hell out of the most damaging pieces of the gun ecosystem so that they were insanely expensive. No bans, no second amendment violations, no stealing grandpa's heirloom rifle. And you can spend the taxes on some mental health services, win-win! Second to that would be to just make their capital really expensive, which is where things look to be headed, but a much more blunt policy tool. I'd hate to see bolt action hunting rifles get thrown away with the bathwater, for example.
Blackrock also things the board of directors needs to have a couple women or they've try to vote out the existing board. https://www.wsj.com/articles/blackr...have-at-least-two-female-directors-1517598407 Who cares about getting the most qualified person for the job? If the company does worse, that's the investors' money not ours.
%% Good points; & 2nd amendment is in US constitution, not like tobacco @ all. Amazing how many losing lawsuits big banks get in still get in /fines/SEC fines
I think we're on the same page and I appreciate your service. Honestly, as I mentioned above, I wish there were no need for guns. I do think someone is entitled to defend themselves against bad people and an assault rifle can improve a good person's odds of survival (target practice would too). However, as you admitted, the problem really is the people. People were not shooting up schools as often many years ago. Are there just more crazy people (people with real mental disorders) today or are there just more people that don't have the same respect for life vs. in the past? If it's not possible to fix that then these bad people will always find a way to kill. Sadly, it's really not that hard to kill / injure a lot of people without guns. In fact, there are way more efficient ways. One or two guys were able to blow up the Oklahoma City building killing 168 people and injuring several hundred. Has there ever been a mass shooting in the US that killed that many people? Granted they were smarter than the school shooters and had technical background...doubt some high school kids could have obtained supplies necessary to make a bomb large enough to blow up a large building. But it's not hard to make a pressure-cooker bomb or run over people with an automobile. I just think that going-forward with 3D printing and new technology (automated machine gun turret science project?) it will only become more difficult to regulate guns especially when they can be manufactured at home. How has outlawing illegal drugs worked? Now we have government-sponsored "safe" injection sites where junkies can shoot up with government sponsorship. I'm convinced that it is possible to take the guns away from good people, but not the bad. Maybe you're right though for now that if they are a lot harder to obtain (assault weapon ban), at least teenagers won't have access to them. At least until they are able to 3D print them.
Fair point, my teenager and I were talking about this the other day and he brought up the same point regarding 3D printing. We have a 3D printer and as I jokingly pointed out they have a built in waiting period (it takes hours to print a small object), but it is only a matter of time.