Skip to main content

View Diary: CalSTRS Hits Gun Manufacturers where it hurts: The Pocket Book (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's nice but as long as gun manufacturers are (5+ / 0-)

    highly profitable divestment won't make much difference.

    •  Part of what keeps them profitable (47+ / 0-)

      Is low cost lending, and a larger bankroll to support.   This is the basis of most good to great companies.   The better the backing, the easier it is to borrow money at a lower rate and make money.   In the end, you aren't going to put people "out of business" but you will make the lending and borrowing infrastructure for some divisions more costly.   In turn, this makes it less profitable.  Not a money loser, but less profitable.

      More than that, as a moral element, there is nothing wrong with saying: I may not be putting them out of business, but it doesn't mean I want my money to be part of what they do.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:27:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I should add.. (17+ / 0-)

      Finding out your division is going to be sold off because an investor demands it does do some real dent of damage; it means that they will not be able to use the prebuilt manufacturing infrastructure of the larger gun company, a buyer will have to be found, and they will have to invest in not just keeping the company, but in building the infrastructure to support it.  

      Sure they come back because it's profitable, but you still put a huge dent, right now.. and the more large scale investment groups that withdraw their support.. it all comes at a price to those going into business.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:32:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and how likely do you think is this happening? (0+ / 0-)

        What prevents them from just finding that amount of cash somewhere else... or just selling stock?

        ______
        "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

        by cris0000 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:21:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You didn't read the article linked (7+ / 0-)

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

          Cerberus said on Tuesday it would hire a financial adviser to sell its interests in Freedom Group and return the proceeds to investors.
          Cerebrus isn't "raising the cash" from elsewhere to prop up the division.  They announced they are selling their investment to someone else.   They are keeping the investment from CalSTRS, and selling off their stake in Bushmasters.  

          You might read the article, it'd help.

          Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

          by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:24:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes and no (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, you are correct. I didnt read the quoted article.

            But, no, that doesn't make your point. You basically argued that Bushmaster's Operation would be hampered by the sale.  

            But since they are selling off the whole Freedom Group, wich is an independently operating company conglomerate, I don't think this is going to happen. They sell the whole company.

            Worst case outcome: they sell it to a competitor, who finds "synergy reserves", fires a bunch of people or maybe even closes production lines but still maintains the same output of weapons.

            So:
            - Best possible outcome: nothing changes
            - Worst possible oucome: many American workers loose their jobs and livelihoods

            Excellent union action.

            ______
            "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

            by cris0000 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:02:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So your point is.. (6+ / 0-)

              That people should stay invested in things they don't believe in because, basically, it doesn't matter or jobs would be lost.

              Let's cover your thoughts:

              "Best Possible Outcome: Nothing Happens"

              No.  Best possible outcome: a few million teachers go to sleep to night knowing that their retirement fund isn't build on the back of a semi-auto gun maker.

              "Worst possible outcome: Americans lose jobs and livelihoods"

              I hate to break this to you, but any change in the gun industry that would reduce sales will have this result.   You can't work toward reducing an industry without realizing some people will lose jobs.  They are just losing jobs in an industry you don't want.

              Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

              by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:21:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  they slept excellently with that thought (0+ / 0-)

                for quite some time.

                The Freedom Group is a major arm manufacturer, not just Bushmaster. It has been owned by Cerebus for at least six years now. If they didn't like that they should not have invested with them in the first place.

                ______
                "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

                by cris0000 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:29:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Point? (3+ / 0-)

                  I don't get your point.   So, they invested for a long time, and now, they are backing out.   You're contending the fact they were a long time backer means they should just throw up their hands and keep backing them, even once they realize they should not be because of serious differences.

                  This argument makes absolutely no sense

                  Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

                  by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:04:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am disputing your point (0+ / 0-)

                    that this decision helps retired teachers to sleep better.

                    Their "moral earnestness" is phony and their claim of differences is insincere.  Just because it is a good argument does not mean they can make it withou exposing themselves to charges of bigotry.

                    Those "differences" have been there for years now, the facts of their investment have not changed a bit.

                    ______
                    "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

                    by cris0000 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:23:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Bigotry? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BYw, Killer of Sacred Cows

                      Bigoted against.. what exactly?

                      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

                      by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:24:00 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh well.... (0+ / 0-)

                        Wikipedia defines Bigotry as the state of mind of a bigot, and the OED defines a bigot as a person who is bigoted.

                        This seems to be, at least to some extent, a case of walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.  They can't define it very well - but they know it when they see it.

                        They all, though, focus the term on resentment, hate and prejudice.

                        My personal definition used to be resentment/hatred under the guise of morality. A Bigot is not a hater alone, but one who tries to pass himself off as virtuous in his resentment.

                        Therefore the defining quality of a bigot is not only that resentment of others, but the inconsistency between his public moral persona and his unreasonable resenting self.

                        You might argue, though, that while we have both resentment and public bousts of morality here, they don't fit that pattern very well.

                        So, yes, it might not be a case of textbook bigotry but just vanilla pharisaic phoniness, mixed with standard leftwing resentment of arms and the military. Which doesn't make it any better.

                        ______
                        "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

                        by cris0000 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:53:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I doubt very many teachers really know where (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Killer of Sacred Cows

                          their pension money goes, as many coworkers in my district were shocked when they heard about Enron related losses. So, it seems like a stretch to assume enough teachers even know who Cerberus is, or enough about them to debate with themselves over how well to sleep over it.

      •  Good points. I was too simplistic. (0+ / 0-)
    •  also (15+ / 0-)

      if the public gets bolder about pushing back against gun violence, then lawsuits can't be far behind.  And lawsuits get expensive, don't they?

      A prudent investor wants to steer away from an industry that's about to be hit with unexpected legal issues.

      •  Suings Gunshows and Webhosts (31+ / 0-)

        I mean this seriously; sue major gun makers and they are prepared.. it would take serious, serious resources and money.  

        But start suing convention halls that host gunshows; suing gun show organizers; websites that sell ammo; web hosts that provide bandwidth for those that sell ammo online.. and you've got people with a lot less interest (and a lot less at the ready to battle a legal fight).

        The line about Achilles Heel wasn't that Achilles was nearly invincible in a head on attack; but everything has a weakness.   It's already been found valid:

        http://bigstory.ap.org/...

        BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — An appeals court in New York has ruled that a former high school athlete who was shot in 2003 can sue the companies that made and distributed the handgun used in the crime.

        The ruling reverses a lower court's dismissal of Buffalo victim Daniel Williams' complaint. Williams claimed Ohio gun maker Hi-Point and distributor MKS Supply intentionally supplied handguns to irresponsible dealers for profit. The gun used to shoot Williams was bought at a gun show by a Buffalo gun trafficker.

        By suing the gun makers for directly providing to gun shows; those who host the gun shows for not checking on the security methods of the sellers; and for the sellers themselves for selling to people without any checks.   Because those people don't have the same resources to keep up the fight.

        Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

        by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:50:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the really good suggestions. (8+ / 0-)

          Your thoughts on how to most effectively impact the sales of guns seem well thought out.  

          Time is a long river.

          by phonegery on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:08:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes -- EXCELLENT suggestions. The gun shows (3+ / 0-)

          and other places where a disturbed person, someone with a violent record, a minor, etc. can get a gun without a background check should be a central line of attack.  And most convention centers, etc., once they see that could provoke a lawsuit, will feel differently about dealing with gun shows.  

          Taking investments away from gun companies is good.  And this is the moment to start that.  But taking away sales outlets is better.

          Do you know of any organizations that now pursue this kind of approach?

          --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

          by Fiona West on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:06:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here is a list of gun shows (12+ / 0-)

            http://www.gunshows-usa.com/...

            Which also lists convention halls.   I'm throwing this out as a suggestion.   I would love to see query letters to the convention halls and grounds.  Something as simple as:

            "Attention Property Owner-

            My name is X, and I would like to make a basic inquiry.  I understand you are hosting gun show Y in my state on (date).  

            While I can inquire through the county, I'm hoping you can provide me information on the insurance bonding provided by the gun show for your facility, and if your facility carries any insurance of it's own for litigation of damages.

            If you can provide me those limits, I would be appreciative.  

            Thank you."

            Next, I would email those who promote gun shows themselves.  And ask them if they have a documentation plan of how well they enforce the state, local and federal laws and if they research those who sell at their shows.  Also ask if they are carrying liability insurance in case a seller doesn't follow their rules.

            Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

            by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:22:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

        why? Care to offer reasoning? An argument?

        ______
        "Und wer nicht tanzen will am Schluss - weiß noch nicht dass er tanzen muss", Rammstein, "Amerika"

        by cris0000 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:23:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site