rkbabang

Today's Dilbert cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-03-03

Yeah, no lol It may be worth considering more than five seconds. We are very, very bad at accurately representing history and our elders with nuance. In the case of Munger he has hints of many controversial views which you sometimes see outrage about (some cultures work better than others is an example which sets the "bigot alarms" blinking). A strange stance to take when you lap up every word he says in all other areas as if was the epitome of intellectualism. Suddenly his views are all down to age and senility, it couldn't possibly be because he read and reasoned his way to them just like in every other area. Only ideology can shut down an otherwise open mind so completely. "some cultures work better than others" is so obviously true that it is insane that it has to be said. Also the sky is blue; Some women say no when they mean maybe; And SJWs need to get a life and a sense of humor.

I just logged on to my account and sure enough: "Trades are now just $4.95". Not that I trade enough for a $3/transaction savings to add up to anything.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Gun+sales+by+caliber Revolvers will be more reliable & easier to maintain when the Zombie apocalypse comes... Interesting link I found with your assisted google search. http://www.gunbroker.com/Content/Top5/2015-GunBroker-Best-Selling-Firearms-of-the-Year.html Also if this is correct http://knowledgeglue.com/what-are-the-most-popular-calibers-in-the-us/ then 9 of the top 10 calibers sold are semi-auto or rifle calibers. Number 10 and 11 are revolver (.357Mag & .38Spc). Also in other gun related news, my state of NH just got rid of its concealed carry license requirement. The governor signed the bill today and it goes into effect immediately. There are a few other states with similar bills pending now as well. https://freestateproject.org/blogs/constitutional-carry-signed-law

I'm a Glock guy myself, if Glock was public I would already own it, there is no question that they are the best semi-auto handguns on Earth. But Ruger is a quality company which makes a quality product. No one makes a better revolver, no one. And as far as semi-auto goes, as I said above, I just purchased a Ruger LCP II. Yes if Glock made a .380 of a similar size I would have went with the Glock, but they don't. My main carry gun is a Glock 26 in 9mm, but depending on what you are wearing, it isn't always easy to conceal. Glock has a single stack .380, but it is huge compared to the Ruger, certainly not a gun you can throw in your front pants pocket. For pocket carry .380s there is Ruger LCP & LCP II, Beretta Pico, and a bunch of lower quality guns from other brands. For revolvers there is really no option better than Ruger. Ruger makes a quality rifles as well, although there is a lot of competition in that space. I just don't think it is accurate to say Ruger makes garbage.

Pretty sure I was making this point (at least regarding gun ownership)...not sure why u are disagreeing with me. Although I mixed 2 words up so maybe it confused you. ;D Finally, just because it is illogical to own a gun does not mean I can't. Nowhere in the article is this even mentioned. Apparently, illogical choices must be the result of some psychological or emotional influence. Is it** unthinkable to say "yes, owning a gun statistically increases the chance I will be involved in some violent gun crime, but I am going to purchase one anyway". Is it wrong to choose protectionist trade or immigration policies, despite knowing the potential economic, social, political costs? I'm not willing to make that claim. Vaccines on the other hand should be mandatory. You're exposing your both your child and others to serious illness or death by not vaccinating your kids. The difference with a gun is that, you exert a level of control over having a gun. You choose not to pull the trigger, essentially. With communicable illness, you can't choose not to infect someone with measles, for instance. I was more disagreeing that it "is illogical to own a gun". That really depends on what you think your own odds are of experiencing the potential negative consequences. This calculation will be different for every individual. My point was that most who are killed by their own gun are suicides which you may feel does not apply to you; many who have children hurt or killed by their guns have them improperly stored, which you may feel does not apply to you; and many people accidentally killed by their guns were under-trained or did something incredibly stupid, which you may feel doesn't apply to you. There are many logical reasons that you wouldn't take the raw statistics and apply them directly to your own odds. Owning a gun is not necessarily "illogical". On the flip side, of course, looking at crime statistics and thinking that you need a gun for protection is equally troubling, because different states/cities/towns/neighborhoods/streets have very different crime rates, you would have to look at the places that you spend your time in order to calculate your risk of becoming a victim not the crime statistics as a whole. I'd venture to say that most gun owners who are safety conscious already avoid high crime areas. So most responsible gun owners probably have a very low probability of negative consequences from their gun ownership, but also a much lower risk of being the victim of a crime requiring self defense then they think. Vaccines is a difficult issue for me. On the one hand I don't like being told that you have to inject your children with X, Y, and Z. Yet on the other hand you are a complete idiot if you don't vaccinate your children.

Did it ever occur to you that optimizing for safety might not be everyone's priority wrt the gun issue? If you wanted to optimize for safety entirely you could advocate building jail cells for everyone and having the government bring you food (not too hot so you don't burn yourself) and never let you see any other human being (who could decide to hurt you at any moment. Those other humans are just completely unpredictable). Some people, myself included, would rather deal with too much freedom than too little. I have no desire to be 100% perfectly safe. I don't want to live in a world where someone tells me what I can't own, what I can't eat, what I can't inject into my veins, what I can't drive, what I can't sell, what I can't buy, what I can't manufacture, what I can't carry on my person. I find it funny that someone will say owning a gun is dangerous, yet will go out jogging or bicycling every day. I can tell you that in US today, you are far more likely to get hit by a car while jogging then you are to die by your own firearm. Or people are concerned that their children will become safe crackers and get to their guns and hurt themselves, yet they have a swimming pool in the back yard. If your guns are properly stored you children are far more likely to die in your swimming pool then they are to get hurt by your firearms. Actually your children are far more likely to die in your car then by your firearms. People optimize for safety when it suits their political agenda and they are reckless and do far more dangerous activities when it doesn't. Also many studies which come to the conclusion that guns are a danger to the people who own them rely on suicide statistics to make the case. Many gun owners do rationally ignore such statistics because they do not apply to them. I can tell you that I have a zero percent chance of committing suicide with my firearms. Someone who has struggled with depression their whole lives might want to evaluate things differently.

We have a Rat Terrier/ Chihuahua mix rescue dog. She looks like a big Chihuahua, but has the Rat Terrier temperament. An excellent dog.

The way I see it, this is happening one way or the other. With or without AOBC & RGR. I also believe that it's criminal to prevent people from having a firearm given the gun violence levels you see in some areas. There have been massive increases in gun sales in the last 30 years as well as massive move to liberalize concealed carry laws. Crime has also decreased significantly in that time. Now I know it is controversial to say these things caused the crime reductions, but it is pretty clear that it didn't prevent them. Outside of a few troubled places such as Chicago, the US really isn't much more dangerous than Canada and Europe. I don't see any moral problems with hoping for increased firearms sales.

That gives a value under $20 & if that happened, I'd load up. That said; if it drops to the low to mid $40's I'll add more (I'm also shopping for a sword, pike & bow right now as the Zombie apocalypse seems imminent...) Somewhere between $20 to $40 I'd be loading up as well. I know you like to fight up close and personal and have your heart set on a sword, pike & bow, but you should really consider this loaded with zombie rounds. Everyone knows that Zombies are attracted to loud noises. Guns would be needed for protection against live humans. I think that forming 2 squads with one aimed at Zombies (and hunting for food) & one for protection against hostile humans would be the way to go (I'd keep a sidearm as a backup; probably a totally reliable Blackhawk...) 🗡 The loud noise problem is real and one that the Republicans in congress are trying to solve. http://lawofficer.com/tactics-weapons/handguns/bill-to-legalize-silencers-introduced-in-congress/ Hopefully this will pass and Trump will sign it. Might make it easier for people to sleep in Chicago without all that noise... Good point. It makes the guns a lot longer though. Gang-bangers are going to need baggier pants.

That gives a value under $20 & if that happened, I'd load up. That said; if it drops to the low to mid $40's I'll add more (I'm also shopping for a sword, pike & bow right now as the Zombie apocalypse seems imminent...) Somewhere between $20 to $40 I'd be loading up as well. I know you like to fight up close and personal and have your heart set on a sword, pike & bow, but you should really consider this loaded with zombie rounds. Everyone knows that Zombies are attracted to loud noises. Guns would be needed for protection against live humans. I think that forming 2 squads with one aimed at Zombies (and hunting for food) & one for protection against hostile humans would be the way to go (I'd keep a sidearm as a backup; probably a totally reliable Blackhawk...) 🗡 The loud noise problem is real and one that the Republicans in congress are trying to solve. http://lawofficer.com/tactics-weapons/handguns/bill-to-legalize-silencers-introduced-in-congress/ Hopefully this will pass and Trump will sign it.

That gives a value under $20 & if that happened, I'd load up. That said; if it drops to the low to mid $40's I'll add more (I'm also shopping for a sword, pike & bow right now as the Zombie apocalypse seems imminent...) Somewhere between $20 to $40 I'd be loading up as well. I know you like to fight up close and personal and have your heart set on a sword, pike & bow, but you should really consider this loaded with zombie rounds.

Here's a good chart to look at: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view You can see how low firearms sales were during the Bush presidency compared with Obama. There was a small uptick right after 9/11/01 but then they went right back down. My biggest fear as far as investing in RGR goes is that sales will drop more and more with Trump in the whitehouse and the Republicans controlling congress. Redo your calculations with a negative 10-20% growth rate for the next 2 years and a flat growth rate for the 6 years after that, which I think is the worst case. If this happens that may be a good time to pickup some RGR shares. But on the other hand RGR is already way below its high, so some of these expectations might already be baked into the stock price. For me the possible negatives outway the cheap looking price at the moment. Then again Trump is the master of uncertainty and with uncertainty comes fear. Also the disdain for him has caused public violence to make the news. Uncertain times are probably good for firearms sales, so maybe sales won't drop off.

The main reason I made the argument about Obama is the incredible difference between the financial results of RGR in 2000-2007 period vs 2008-2016. Sales declined 20% from 2000 to 2007. Net earnings actually declined in half. RGR actually suspended their dividend in 2006. In 2005/6 RGR earnings were close to zero. Then from 2008-2016 sales nearly quadrupled and net earnings grew by a factor of 10. Profit margins improved from 5% to over 10%. You are really dealing with two totally different companies depending on the political party in power. The political factor is not small at all...its massive. That is assuming I can ascribe all of RGR performance to political factors..its possible there was a turnaround during that time period. BTW, I am curious about your perspective on Smith&Wesson. You are correct about politics being a big factor in the industry, which is probably why I've never invested even though I keep looking at these companies over and over again. You were also correct about S&W a few posts back. This pretty much sums up how I feel. http://www.lneilsmith.org/smithandwessonmustdie.html

But that shouldn't really effect profit margins. The only way profit margin do get effected is if guns are seen as commodity goods like usb cables or if there are new entrants into the industry. Lower labour costs would probably actually help gun makers since it would increase the number of gun users. My fear is the market for used guns. I feel like the number of guns that got bought during the Obama administration was way too many because gun owners were afraid. Now with Trump I can see these guys selling their guns regretting the purchases of guns they never use. They will sell them onto the used market which should really hurt the market for new guns. I would want to be these guys: http://www.armslist.com/ I never understood the concept of actually selling a gun. Many gun owners don't, so I'm not so sure that will be significant. People tend to collect guns not sell them and if they do sell them it is only because there is another one they want but can't afford. So many used gun sales will translate into new gun sales. Also guns tend to hold their value fairly well. I know whenever I've looked into buying a used gun I find myself thinking for only $X more I could just go and buy it new, so I do. This obviously doesn't apply to rare/antique/collectable items, but I'm not into any of that and that isn't a significant factor in the market we are talking about. Also, even if you are correct and I wrong, this will effect some gun types more than others. People had the perception that certain rifles that the anti-gun people like to call "assault weapons" because of how they look were in danger of being banned and many stocked up on those, but I don't think the market for handguns, shotguns, or rifles that aren't black and scary looking to the political left will be affected at all by the Obama spike in sales. Yes, Obama was the world's best firearms salesman and now he's gone, but long term there will be another Obama-like president and gun sales will spike like crazy again.

+1. You'd think that if AI can play poker that it could use context clues to determine what wood we meant to type.

As mentioned above demographic changes, women are starting to get into shooting and self defence training like never before. That and the liberalizing of concealed carry laws are changing the types of firearms which are in demand. Both of these factors are driving a shift towards concealability as being important. Ruger has a few highly regarded firearms in this space. I actually just purchased a Ruger LCP II. It is a .380 that is highly concealable, only 0.75" wide so perfect for a pocket or a purse. It just came out a few months ago and is a vast improvement over the original Ruger LCP. On the LCP II the slide locks back after your last round (important for knowing that you've fired your last round and for ease of reloading quickly), the trigger has a Glock-like trigger safety, and I've heard that it is easier to shoot (less snappy with a smother/lighter trigger pull) than the original. I've never shot the original LCP, but the LCP II is very nice to shoot. I've actually starting looking at RGR a little bit after buying it, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. EDIT: Ruger LCP II Also their LC9 is not much larger and chambered in 9MM, just a little too big for pocket carry, but still easily concealed inside the waistband or in a purse and of course 9mm is a more effective caliber. http://www.ruger-firearms.com/products/lc9s/models.html

According to POTUS, "integrity" is an alt fact for losers. I for one fully support Wikileaks on Boston financiers. People above are doing god's Trump's libertarian work. The person who put this online is violating an agreement they made and that is wrong. But once it is online already, reading it doesn't violate any agreement, because if you are already an investor you have already read it, and if you are not you have made no secrecy agreement with anyone.

I prefer paper. But that is not how I do most of my reading. For books, I'd say I read 80% Kobo ereader/20% paper. For news/articles 90% iPhone/10% desktop computer screen. For SEC filings/reports 100% desktop computer screen. For this board. 50% iphone/50% desktop computer screen.

I was heavily invested in Fairfax, WEST, SNS and the MIDD/OVEN merger, so I didn't even have a down year from 2007-2009. Unlike last year where I was down 9% in an up market. :/

Bingo. In that case, I stand corrected and I apologize. Your last sentence threw me off. I thought you were saying that you don't want to engage in discussion since I am not a civilized human being. I suppose I could have worded that better. "The moment someone..." rather than "The moment you..."

There is always bankruptcy. I know someone who bought a timeshare in Las Vegas who financed the purchase with the resort. So not only did he have the yearly costs, but a monthly payment on a high interest loan. After about three years of paying he just stopped. He was in financial trouble he just stopped paying his mortgage and car loans too. I don't know all the details, but I do know he lost his house, his cars, filed bankruptcy and doesn't own the timeshare anymore. Probably not the solution your looking for.

Wished you had followed your own advice and re-read the exchange. Here is what he wrote. Do you see what I mean? Probably not inside that right wing bubble of denialism. Nope. It says the moment anyone initiates violence you lose the right to civility and the aggrieved party can defend themselves. I think you misunderstand who the "you" is. I'm out. Bingo.

The 1st amendment mentions who is "fit to speak" does it? Point me to where the right is burning things, assaulting people, and destroying property to stop people from speaking? I see but hurt fascists, but not on the right. The first amendment does not regulate who gets to speak at a university. It starts with the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." Using your logic, Harvard not allowing you to give a speech on constitutional law in one of their lecture halls is a violation of free speech. Love it when alt rightists go on about free speech. It is a public university. Do some research on the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. But even without the first amendment if a group at Harvard law invited me to speak and another group lit fires and beat people up to stop me, whether that is a first amendment violation or not it isn't the way civilized human beings behave. If you do not want to hear someone speak don't attend. "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it shut you up" Lol. Way to deflect from your easily debunked original 1st amendment claim. I never agreed with the violent protests and destruction of property. That guy is scum. I am against giving an editor of Breitbart news, neo nazi, KKK, ISIS member, Al Qaeda, etc a platform at a legitimate university. Their speech would add no value to discussion and would be destructive. Anyway, it's not for me to decide, it's the university. If you want to know his opinion, go read at Breitbart news. I can't wait until Breitbart opens an investing section. I hope you will go ahead and invest based on their news since you have no regard for facts or decency. What ever happened to plain old decency? Isn't this forum in the other of a guy like Warren Buffett? "What ever happened to plain old decency?" What happened indeed.

So basically take a 100% loss on it? Ouch. Yes, but it won't cost them yearly anymore. Just a suggestion without knowing if there is a demand for the timeshare they own. If you look on ebay there are some where people get money for it. That would depend on the place I guess.