>>1009925
dude, you missed that wave. it was at 9 last year its at 22 now.

>buy high sell low

>>1009929
Yeah, obviously, but I was thinking it will go even higher, I dunno though, like I said..........total nub

>>1009931
I am totally new aswell but according to /biz/ recommended reading being totally new qualifies you as much as anyone who is mad experience so heres my 2 cents....

it is reaching the price it hit during the asshole shredding crash of 2008. I dont see it going higher than it did in 2008.

Buy into companies that sell nonlethal weapons in Europe. Their sales have increased tremendously and are only going to go up because of all the immigrants.

>>1009938
Interesting idea, will look into

>>1009938
smart

Dude smith and wesson hit it's all time high a few days ago.

As a lifelong gun fag, you must trust me that gun industry swings are unpredictable.

>>1009925
As gun control ramps up in the US, I'd invest in companies that make so called "smart guns", or companies that produce the locking mechanisms to make them safer. Right now the NRA hates them, but with enough pressure for safety eventually it'll make money.


>>1009938
Neat. So things like mace, tazers, and beanbag guns?

>>1010001
Exactly. Stun guns and mace are ideal since they do not cause the damage associated with blunt force weapons, thus giving them an easier time legally. They are also cheap to produce and distribute, and have the benefit of being a stereotypical weapon, so people will think of them by default when they are asked about self defense means. They are also useable by anyone, regardless of strength.

>>1009977
Yeah, I was viewing some of their shit on trendlines, nothing significant right after 9/11 or other major domestic issues, so I'm leaning towards mehhhhhhhhh

But this idea about European non lethal investing........sounds interesting.

>>1010001
Smart Gun technology is unworkable and I would doubt that the trajectory of Gun Control is going how you think it is. Any company that would make a Smart Gun or "locking mechanisms" like you think would occur, would be privately owned precisely because of the ability to make a killing because of the markets which have a mandate for Smart Gun technology (New Jersey and Germany for instance). But the technology isn't going to come along because it is a dumb concept.

For the OP

Stay away from ANY self-defense stocks. I own lots of Guns and have watched the industry for 10 years. The only companies that are public are those that sell inferior products. If a self-defense company sells a great product it would be privately owned and the owner would be pocketing every bit of what he could get.

The Self-Defense industry is completely decentralized because of the nature of regulations and permitting. The way to make money is to find a certain product and sell it for a profit. That is it for making money, you can't make the booku bucks on share ownership.

>>1010051
Smart gun Technology is unworkable? thats why the NRAs champion shooter just got BTFO by Chris Kyles wife.

>>1009938
Hrmph. You'd get a better return investing in halal food, burka and prayer mat manufacture, and shares in companies specializing in swords and explosives.

>>1010029
Yeah. I have been gunfagging since the early 90s and I have seen all kinds changes in the industry, and they always end up suprising everyone.

Their was stuff that was literally worth it's weight in scrap iron in the early 2000s and has now quadrupled in value since. Their is also stuff that you had to suck a dick for in 1999, but can now buy at any sporting goods store.

These swings come from a complicated combination of supply ( local and global) cultural changes, federal law, crime sprees, fiction ( movies and shit) and general public hysteria.

>>1010029
Nonlethal weapons actually don't have the same popularity here as get do in the US. afaik pepper spray is illegal for civilian use, tasers are only recently being adopted by our police and have had a poor public response, etc. By all means keep your ear to the ground for changes in current affairs and/or legislation but I'd be surprised if Europe was a real growth market for nonlethals.

>>1010081
naggants are a joke.

>>1010082
Europe is already a growth market for nonleathals.

This is what just happened:
that man declared that Europe is a growth market for non leathals
you decided you dont *feel* that way so responded without fact checking
I am over here post-fact checking telling you that you are wrong and it has seen measurable growth recently.

>>1010070
It's unworkable because electronics fail. If the electronics fail then you have a useless piece of iron that can't fulfill its function. Even if a proprietary device can function properly, there is a big problem. The knock-offs and derivatives of that product will be numerous and will have many problems which will be passed onto consumers in the name of cost cutting.

>>1010188
This is not the model used at all across countless pieces of military equipment and essentially the entire navy.

If smart guns worked, cops, soldiers, insurgents, and everyone with access to them would use them.

>>1010220
The technology is new, give it time.

>>1010234

Invariably, people will likely stick to what is tried and true, because smart guns will not provide improved capacity, performance, or reduced cost.

>>1010243
>sticking to what is tried and true
again, not the model we see historically
>smart guns will not improve capacity
idk what you mean by that. if you mean physical round capacity that's not an issue.
>performance
yes it will - thats the point
>reduce cost
wont reduce cost, but again - thats not the model we see being used. they will fork out the cash if they can fanagle it.

>>1010212
That is exactly the model used in defense sales.

It has been the model used in defense sales practically forever. Have a defective product, sell defective product to end user, ????, Profit.

The United States just had a ship fail on it's maiden voyage and need to be towed back to port because of inferior and improperly working systems.

>>1010246
You seem like you have no clue about what the firearms industry is like as a whole to be very blunt. As it stands the working proof of concept (Armatix) went into bankruptcy and still has not emerged after it was unable to find buyers for it's technology (Quite possibly because it would force every single distributor of the product to eventually ONLY buy from Armatix).

It doesn't fix anything. It literally is a technology meant to comply with regulatory requirements.

Which then makes me wonder, what do YOU think is the utility of a smart gun? I can't see anything that a smart gun does which cannot already be accomplished via mechanical means or which should not be occurring in the first place.

>>1010828
I am not sure why you feel that way, It seems like you are the one that does not see the direction the fire arms industry is heading. One mismanaged company going into bankruptcy does not speak for the industry as a whole. You see across all industries when technology advances, the related industry generally responds positively. Smart weapon technology is not limited to just locking weapons. That is short sighted, and lacks vision. Like i previously stated, instances like Chris Kyles wife outshooting the NRAs top marksman are going to become more and more common as smart technology pushes the weapons platforms into the next century. Further, sticking to your single point topic of locking mechanisms on weapons. As regulation increases you will see growing market in places with ever increasing gun control like CA and NY for those with the money to attempt to keep their weapons.

You might follow weapons news, but you lack vision and foresight.

>>1010841
That's not what is meant by "smart gun" technology. You are using imprecise terminology which is confounding what you actually mean. What you really are saying you are investing in is something like Tracking Point technology.

The point of the regulation is to lessen the number of guns in circulation. Just look at California's handgun safety roster or the NYSAFE act. They really don't want civilian ownership of guns.

>>1011159
I see now what you mean how 'Smart Gun' has been coined to mean literally just a locking gun. If I were in the weapons manufacturing industry I would push back that term. I would (and will if I get the timing right) invest in both technologies such as Tracking Point and "Smart Gun". I fully understand the point of regulation, and like I said I think with the current trend we are seeing in weapons law I think "smart gun" technology will be a great investment opportunity in places like NY or CA.

>>1009925
>>Huge gun debate in America right NOW
No, just no. Gun laws are becoming more lax, not more strict, and Obama can't do anything about it with a pro-gun Supreme Court and republican senate/house majority.

>people scared, buying like mad men
The panic buys don't last long.

>Terror attacks occurring, stoking fear
Which are forgotten within a few months.

>Obama to make announcement about furthering gun control in a few weeks
Obama can't further any gun control.

>So, would this be retarded?
Yes.

>>1010246
>again, not the model we see historically
That isn't an argument for "smart guns", silly.

>yes it will - thats the point
What performance will be improved by "smart guns"? I can only see cons with the concept, with the main drawback being that it simply creates liabilites.

>they will fork out the cash if they can fanagle it.
People will only fork out money for this shit technology if the government declares all other guns illegal, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

>>1011172
> I fully understand the point of regulation, and like I said I think with the current trend we are seeing in weapons law
The trend isn't swinging in favor of communist states such as NY or CA.