[390ish]

I am just wondering if all the slick folks who bought up rifles and mags with the hopes of reselling at a profit are going to to lose their shirts if a ban does not go through. I would think that there will be a serious over supply issue if a ban does not take effect.

[JBnTX]

We can only hope the price gougers get what they deserve.

[mgs]

Only if they paid inflated prices. Years ago when there was a primer shortage my brother in law was buying them for $30 a 1000 and they were $20 a 1000 at the store when available. He got stuck with them but this stortage today will last about 9 months to a year or more depending on OBozoz's attack plan.

I'm sitting on new mags I paid $9 each. I'm not selling them and don't need too.

[doodi1]

It will take about 9 months to a year for the supply to catch up to demand. There will be some gouging going on until this happens. I will bet that there will be a lot of people caught out holding the bag. I've been buying what I've needed and don't mind paying a small premium for it. Just don't pay the outrageous prices they demand and let them burn. I will stop doing business with Cheaper Than Dirt for good. Their brazen tactics and gouging have been waaay over the top. They deserve to go out of business.

[John Rambo]

As with any bubble, yes.

[390ish]

I just wonder what percentage of folks with back orders are going to be able to cancel orders without any penalty. If the mag ban does not go through I be that back order on 1 million Pmags will be reduced by at least 80% and probably the same with rifles. People like to join in on panics so they have something to talk about and identify with. If there is no panic I see interest evaporating. I really thought that everyone who wanted an AR-15 already owned one in August of 2012. I bet receivers will be going for $50.00 by October if there is no ban.

[SigFTW]

Just wait with your money in hand and be ready to pick up some good deals from a flooded market.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by SigFTW

Just wait with your money in hand and be ready to pick up some good deals from a flooded market.

Wouldnt this be morally wrong?

I mean I see "gouging" all over above. This is obviously saying someone on the supply side is using their power to control prices and that is somehow wrong. So, when demand drops then people hope to use the low demand side to control prices and lower them. If controlling prices by supply is wrong, how can controlling prices by the demand side not be wrong?

[Gallium]

No. You are overestimating how many people are buying guns simply to resell them.

More of a consideration is how many people are buying guns just to have them.

On one hand people talk about their guns being virtually indestructible, and in another breath they want 4 copies of the same gun just in case. I could live with 2 AR15s in 223/5.56, and two 7.62 guns, and a couple in 300, 308 and .338 Lapau.

Add a couple in 270WIN, and a 460 Weatherby, plus a couple of nice shotguns, and I only need (2+3+2+4-1...add one, carry that over, then 5+2...) It seems I am a little bit behind!


To distill, lots of folks are buying in case a ban takes effect, not so much to resell, but to have. I think less than 15% of all buyers are doing so to flip their guns.

Also, if the bastards pass legislation like NY (no grandfathering - which they acknowledge was a "problem" during the last ban), you may end up like NYers, sitting on $2000 "pre ban" guns that are now only worth 1/2 that.


- G

[PVolk]

Originally Posted by 390ish

I would think that there will be a serious over supply issue if a ban does not take effect.

Is there even such as thing as an over-supply problem with firearms?

Originally Posted by 390ish

I bet receivers will be going for $50.00 by October if there is no ban.

I bet receivers will still be scarce come October regardless if a ban does or doesn't pass. Many manufacturers were working with 6-12 month backorders in November, and they've only tacked on another 6-12 months since then...

[mgs]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Wouldnt this be morally wrong?

I mean I see "gouging" all over above. This is obviously saying someone on the supply side is using their power to control prices and that is somehow wrong. So, when demand drops then people hope to use the low demand side to control prices and lower them. If controlling prices by supply is wrong, how can controlling prices by the demand side not be wrong?

I guess you don't watch Pawn Stars or Pickers!

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Wouldnt this be morally wrong?

I mean I see "gouging" all over above. This is obviously saying someone on the supply side is using their power to control prices and that is somehow wrong. So, when demand drops then people hope to use the low demand side to control prices and lower them. If controlling prices by supply is wrong, how can controlling prices by the demand side not be wrong?

WRONG!

It's different.

It's "bad" when "I" have to pay more for something

It's "good" when I can pay less for something

It's "bad" when "you" can sell something for more

It's "good" if you have to sell something for less

I,I,I,I,ME,ME,ME = good.

You, them, they = bad.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

WRONG!

It's different.

It's "bad" when "I" have to pay more for something

It's "good" when I can pay less for something

It's "bad" when "you" can sell something for more

It's "good" if you have to sell something for less

I,I,I,I,ME,ME,ME = good.

You, them, they = bad.

I forgot. This is how GT "conservatives" view "free markets."

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Gallium

To distill, lots of folks are buying in case a ban takes effect, not so much to resell, but to have. I think less than 15% of all buyers are doing so to flip their guns.

I agree completely.
Nothing makes a person want something like [the possibility of] not being able to have it. Even if they may not have previously wanted it.

I also think there are a fair number of folks who are very concerned for the direction this country is taking and looking for a bit of security.

Originally Posted by Gallium

Also, if the bastards pass legislation like NY (no grandfathering - which they acknowledge was a "problem" during the last ban), you may end up like NYers, sitting on $2000 "pre ban" guns that are now only worth 1/2 that.

I'll be curious if those just "go away" deep into safes with the hope of an eventual sunset or geographic move, or if folks truly try to unload them for pennies on the dollar. I'd bet on the former, though.

[Beanie-Bean]

I am still going to go with my version of "The List" and try to acquire it as funding/pricing allows. I'll also be on the hunt for some "bargain basement" deals from those who are trying to unload their bad investments.

[Bruce H]

Procrastination allways has a way of biting ones wallet. If a firearm looks like something I would use I check them out when first introduced. If they are what I need I will buy one of the price is within reason for my needs.

I don't buy many but what I have are nice land do the job I want.

[Disintegr8or]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

We can only hope the price gougers get what they deserve.

No such thing.

[TX OMFS]

Originally Posted by DanaT

If controlling prices by supply is wrong, how can controlling prices by the demand side not be wrong?

Wow. I agree with you.

I've got a few mags and a Crimson Trace I need to get on Gun Broker before things cool too much.

[vafish]

Originally Posted by 390ish

I just wonder what percentage of folks with back orders are going to be able to cancel orders without any penalty. If the mag ban does not go through I be that back order on 1 million Pmags will be reduced by at least 80% and probably the same with rifles. People like to join in on panics so they have something to talk about and identify with. If there is no panic I see interest evaporating. I really thought that everyone who wanted an AR-15 already owned one in August of 2012. I bet receivers will be going for $50.00 by October if there is no ban.

One distributor has a $100 cancellation fee in all orders.

posted from my stupid smart phone, please excuse any spelling mistakes.

[SigFTW]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Wouldnt this be morally wrong?

I mean I see "gouging" all over above. This is obviously saying someone on the supply side is using their power to control prices and that is somehow wrong. So, when demand drops then people hope to use the low demand side to control prices and lower them. If controlling prices by supply is wrong, how can controlling prices by the demand side not be wrong?

It's not morally wrong to find good deals or wait for the market to correct. I'm not talking about controlling the market, just buying AT the right time. For me it would be buying at the level I have been buying before all this started, like picking up guns on sale, that's just smart buying.

However I do see the point you are making.

[sappy13]

On one of the gun boards I am on prices are already somewhat leveling out. A lot of the ar15's on there are not getting any comments or hits if their price is in the true gouging range. They are no where near back to the pre panic, but it is at least leveling out with current gunstore prices or at least close.

[SC Tiger]

I hope so, because that will mean the ban did not go through as expected.

[elsolo]

Originally Posted by Gallium

No. You are overestimating how many people are buying guns simply to resell them.

More of a consideration is how many people are buying guns just to have them.

That's my take on it as well.

[Peace Warrior]

I have several .40 stock, standard capacity Glock-22 magazines, which will work in several different Glocks.

I wonder how much one of them is worth currently?

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by peace warrior

i have several .40 stock, standard capacity glock-22 magazines, which will work in several different glocks.

I wonder how much one of them is worth currently?

$29.99