There are inherent problems when similar systems are conflated.
Mixing economics and accounting is as natural as mixing meteorology and climatology.
This often happens as the two practices often share terminology, just used in differing ways.
So, it's only logical that microeconomics terminology gets blended into accounting. Hence, the article referenced above. We can have an innate understanding of household accounting, yet, while microeconomics uses similar terms, they don't quite mean the same thing.
Purchasing firearms and and ammo is all discretionary spending. Discretionary spending has no financial value. It will not gain value through interest, or by way of contractual trade. Changes in replacement costs, particularly through inflation, can appear to be an inflation of value, a financial "gain." Which is not the same as an investment, where terms and values can be predicted or scheduled.
And, it's subtle stuff, slippery at every turn.
If I buy a firearm for a unit of currency, and decades later the retail value is Unit(x), that looks like I'm "ahead" on the purchase, that I have gained value. But, I cannot buy a firearm today at a unit of currency, I cannot project a Future Value by way of an increasing percentage over time. Further, because inflation is a fickle beast, the actual Present Value might actually be less in inflation-adjusted currency, even if the amounts are different.
So you buy a shooter for $100 thirty years ago, and it's $1200 retail, today--so you are "ahead" $1100, right? Not if inflation makes that $1100 only worth $800-900; that instead of being worth $100 in thirty-year-old currency, it's actually only $80. So, you are in a $20 "hole."
We buy firearms and their accoutrements because that is our preference. Something we do for our pleasure, not for our gain. For gain, you want something that has a contract to pay a known profit over time.
