Why resist? In their own way they are a 401K, if managed properly!
More or less the same way a lottery ticket is a 401(k), if you managed properly - first you have to manage to buy the right one.
The risks associated with treating guns as investments blows my mind.
The legislative risks alone are mind boggling - the value of your "investment" can be blown by either less restrictive or more restrictive legislation. As an example of risk due to less restrictive legislation, talk to folks that bought "pre-ban" magazines a couple of years ago. While it seems very unlikely, if Heller or some subsequent decision were to force the opening of the Federal machine gun registry, what would that do the the value of a Uzi bought last year for investment purposes? As an example of the other extreme, I see no reason why a left-leaning legislature couldn't prohibit or excessively tax the sales of "assault weapons" - with some wacky definition of "assault weapon". The legislature might or might not grandfather in existing weapons. I can easily imagine a legislature permitting possession of existing weapons of some class, but not permitting the sale of those weapons.
I understand that there is legislative risk with most investments, but the legislative risk with guns strikes me as off the charts. For example, US government agriculture policy could have a big impact on corn futures - but the government is pretty darned unlikely to make sale/possession of corn illegal.
I think that there are also some pretty specific "age related" risks to our hobby. I think it's a crying shame, but I see a lot more gray hair at the gun range than I do body piercings. Speaking as an official "old geezer" - I turned 55 last Friday, I see a lot more old geezers at the range than I do young whippersnappers. Two things are true about old geezers:
- Old geezers relatively affluent. Most economists will tell you that affluence generally is highly correlated with age in the US - at least until medical bills gobble it all up at the very end. In general, men 55 to 65 can afford more expensive toys than men 25 to 35 for example.
- Old geezers die. Men who are 65 to 75 probably aren't going to be buying expensive toys for more than another couple of decades.
Since I don't see as many young people coming into our sport, that leads me to believe that the current value of weapons is pretty dependent on an aging affluent population that is dying off. That doesn't bode well for the future value of the toys that affluent population is currently buying. What that suggests to me is that the number of people willing and able to pay top dollar for investment grade guns is going to diminish pretty radically in the next 25 years. I could be wrong about that, but my observation is that the percent of the population under 30 who are hunting or serving in the military is much, much smaller than it was when I was growing up. I suspect that many folks currently involved in the shooting sports were introduced to weapons either as hunters or by military service - that just isn't happening any more.
Both of these risks suggest to me that "investing" in guns is extraordinarily risky - probably more risky than investing in works of art or oil wells.
It would be very interesting to have someone who understands finances/investing analyze investment in weapons. I will be the first to tell you that understanding the risks with any of more complicated bonds makes my head hurt, even though I think I understand many of the risks in stock investment. I suspect that the risks associated with investing in weapons (for civilian use) is much more complicated than for any of those financial instruments.
Mike
