????誠(chéng)然，購(gòu)買(mǎi)某家上市公司的股票和投資某家承諾實(shí)現(xiàn)組合多元化的私募股權(quán)基金兩者是有區(qū)別的。也就是直接和間接的區(qū)別。但另一方面，我們也可以看到有些機(jī)構(gòu)投資者(a)只投資一些承諾不會(huì)進(jìn)行某些類型投資（如武器、煙草等）的基金, 或者(b)堅(jiān)持其資金不參與此類不良投資，這樣就不會(huì)成為間接股東了。

????不幸的是，加州教師退休基金沒(méi)有選擇這兩條道路。

????“顯然，你可以說(shuō)這家公司的產(chǎn)品屬于21條風(fēng)險(xiǎn)因素，特別是與人類健康相關(guān)的那條，” 加州教師退休基金的發(fā)言人理查多·杜然說(shuō)?！暗泻芏喈a(chǎn)品取決于使用者是否負(fù)責(zé)任，在這個(gè)案例中它是不負(fù)責(zé)任地使用了……現(xiàn)在發(fā)生了這樣的悲劇事件，我相信我們未來(lái)會(huì)討論這個(gè)問(wèn)題?！?/p>

????當(dāng)我接著問(wèn)今年7月在科羅拉多州奧羅拉市影院槍擊事件中也使用了大毒舌步槍，那以后加州教師退休基金有沒(méi)有進(jìn)行過(guò)這樣的討論，杜然表示他不知情。另外，值得一提的是塞伯路斯沒(méi)有回復(fù)要求置評(píng)的請(qǐng)求。

????過(guò)去幾天，關(guān)于如何阻止這類殺戮慘劇重演有著很多討論，人們的建議涉及加強(qiáng)槍支管控立法，改善心理健康基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施等等。準(zhǔn)確地說(shuō)，這兩項(xiàng)建議我都支持。

????但我也在想，美國(guó)大型的非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)也應(yīng)該將資金用得其所。盈利是投資的首要目標(biāo)，但不能犧牲更廣泛的原則。如果一只教師基金、大學(xué)捐贈(zèng)基金或一家非營(yíng)利性基金會(huì)真想要阻止下一次大規(guī)模槍擊殺戮事件的發(fā)生，他們就應(yīng)該停止向生產(chǎn)這些工具的公司提供資金支持。

????對(duì)于很多槍支愛(ài)好者，像.223口徑大毒蛇這樣的半自動(dòng)步槍頗為拉風(fēng)，因?yàn)樗蔑@了個(gè)人自由。對(duì)于自由集團(tuán)，它們就是利潤(rùn)。假如一家公司不調(diào)整內(nèi)部政策（比如，調(diào)整為只向警方和軍方提供此類武器），就再也找不到私人投資者，那么自由集團(tuán)很可能就會(huì)做出改變。資本當(dāng)然是資本主義之源。

????塞伯路斯沒(méi)有對(duì)多次置評(píng)請(qǐng)求做出回應(yīng)。另外沒(méi)有置評(píng)的還有私募股權(quán)公司Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co.。這家公司將Remington防務(wù)公司賣給了塞伯路斯，如今仍持有武器周邊公司Magpul Industries。

????譯者：楊智

????To be sure, there is a difference between buying a listed company's stock and investing in a private equity fund that promises to build out a diversified portfolio. Direct versus indirect. But it also is true that certain institutional investors either, (a) Only invest in private equity funds that pledge not to make certain types of investments (e.g., firearms, tobacco, etc.), or (b) Insist that its money be carved out of any such offending investment, so that the institution does not become an indirect shareholder.

????Unfortunately, CalSTRS has not taken either tack.

????"Clearly you can make a case that this company's products fall within the 21 risk factors, particularly the one regarding human health," says CalSTRS spokesman Ricardo Duran. "But there are a lot of products that can be used responsibly or irresponsibly, and in this case it was used irresponsibly... Now that a tragic event like this has occurred, I'm sure that it is something that we will be discussing going forward."

????When I followed up by asking if CalSTRS had such a discussion after a Bushmaster rifle was used in the Aurora movie theater shooting, Duran said he did not know. Also worth noting that Cerberus itself is not returning requests for comment.

????There has been a lot of talk in the past several days about how to prevent the next massacre, with suggestions ranging from strengthened gun control legislation to improved mental health infrastructure. And, for the record, I support both.

????But I also think that it's time for our large nonprofit institutions to put some of their money where their mission is. Profit should be the primary goal of their investment offices, but not at the expense of their broader purposes. If a schoolteachers union or university endowment or nonprofit foundation truly cares about stopping the next mass killing, then they should not provide capital that produces the instruments of such destruction.

????For many gun enthusiasts, semi-automatic rifles like the?.223 Bushmaster is about sport and individual liberty. For Freedom Group, they are about profit. If the company were unable to find private investors unless it changed internal policy -- perhaps by only supplying such weaponry to police departments and military -- then Freedom most likely would do so. Capital is, of course, the root of capitalism.

????Cerberus did not return repeated requests for comment. Also not commenting was private equity firm?Bruckmann, Rosser, Sherrill & Co., which sold Remington to Cerberus and still owns firearms peripherals company?Magpul Industries.