AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
Ahh, the "beer theory" of gun ownership! A perfect fit!I've always looked at losses when I sell a gun for less than I paid as "rent"'.
I had use of the gun and finally got tired of it and moved on to something else.
I was just the temporary custodian and took pleasure in having it, so rent seems reasonable.
Most things Ive bought over the years were sold for less than I paid for them. Never really too much of a beating, and as deadin said, their status money wise, was more like rent than ownership. And unless I happened to get a dog/POS, or something called Springfield Armory , and quickly ditched it just to be done with it, I usually got more out of them than I paid for them.It amazes me that no one ever seems to take into account inflation in discussions like these. I paid $750 for a rifle back in 94. I would have to sell that gun for $1300 today-just to keep up with inflation. Unless you have an historically significant gun, with proof of provenance (e.g., the pistol with which John Wilkes Booth shot President Lincoln), or you have a gun that is in incredibly high demand (AR15 after a Democrat takes the White House), the probability of losing money on a firearm is pretty high.
Not all of the guns Ive owned were like that though. Anything "HK" was basically a very good, short term investment (thanks mostly to the republicans), and usually brought more than double, even triple what I paid for them. And that went for their accessories too.
NFA items were also a very good investment, and again, thanks to the republicans.
Guns like the AR's have been pretty lucrative too, but only because I understand that you buy when things are cheap and sell when they are high. The thanks there when I made money, was mostly due to the Democrats. The republicans get the nod this time, for them being cheaper when I bought them recently anyway.