Firearm Memes? Let’s share!

[lucusloc]

The effect is the same though, regardless of the cause.

Yes, if supply is restricted on a desirable item price will go up. My point was that comparing an artificially created price to one that isn't is not a valid comparison. The meme is comparing apples to oranges (if you assume the guns are FA examples).

 

[The Heretic]

Yes, if supply is restricted on a desirable item price will go up. My point was that comparing an artificially created price to one that isn't is not a valid comparison. The meme is comparing apples to oranges (if you assume the guns are FA examples).

I think most people know why NFA items are artificially expensive, so... *shrug*

 

[Flopsweat]

Yes, if supply is restricted on a desirable item price will go up. My point was that comparing an artificially created price to one that isn't is not a valid comparison. The meme is comparing apples to oranges (if you assume the guns are FA examples).

Gotta call you out on this one. You said that 10 of them wouldn't buy a decent house. Turns out they absolutely would.

 

[ClownWorldNow]

 

[lucusloc]

Gotta call you out on this one. You said that 10 of them wouldn't buy a decent house. Turns out they absolutely would.

Mmmmm, I don't buy it. Are we talking 10 of them made a century ago with proper registration and paperwork or 10 of them I can go buy NiB made yesterday without having to wait months for an approval? Those are two very different things.

 

[Flopsweat]

Mmmmm, I don't buy it. Are we talking 10 of them made a century ago with proper registration and paperwork or 10 of them I can go buy NiB made yesterday without having to wait months for an approval? Those are two very different things.

Aaaaahhhhrgh. Do I have to look your post up and quote it word for word? You were wrong. Let it go.

 

[Xaevian]

"My bad".

Is that so difficult?

 

[lucusloc]

Aaaaahhhhrgh. Do I have to look your post up and quote it word for word? You were wrong. Let it go.

I just bought a Thompson, paid less than 2k for it. Times that by 10 gets you to ~20k. That is not enough to get you an average house today. The semi-auto Thompson would be about the cost of a full auto one (probably a bit more expensive actually as FA is actually easier to produce than semi) if it were not for the artificial scarcity induced by the NFA banning all new production. It is not wrong to point out that we are talking about multiple different things in completely different classes of economics. Indeed, I find the omission of those details to be wrong.

 

[Flopsweat]

I just bought a Thompson, paid less than 2k for it. Times that by 10 gets you to ~20k. That is not enough to get you an average house today. The semi-auto Thompson would be about the cost of a full auto one (probably a bit more expensive actually as FA is actually easier to produce than semi) if it were not for the artificial scarcity induced by the NFA banning all new production. It is not wrong to point out that we are talking about multiple different things in completely different classes of economics. Indeed, I find the omission of those details to be wrong.

Yeah, you bought a semi-auto one. I bet it had a 16" barrel too. The image was a short barrel, which anyone on this site would naturally assume was a real Thompson: the full-auto one.

 

[lucusloc]

Yeah, you bought a semi-auto one. I bet it had a 16" barrel too. The image was a short barrel, which anyone on this site would naturally assume was a real Thompson: the full-auto one.

View attachment 1874368

Which would cost ~2k if it were not for NFA restrictions, as if it were bought in 1929. Which is exactly my point. Thompsons made today cost ~2k, it is only the historic examples from pre-1984 that cost new car prices.

Or are you going to say "a bottle of wine only cost an hour's wages in 1945. Today a bottle of wine costs as much as a new house!"? No, you would not. You would look at equivalent production today to make that comparison, not a historic example that can never be made again.

You want that meme to be accurate? Say "if you bough 10 Thompsons in 1929 it would have cost you as much as a new house then. If you sole those same 10 Thompsons today you could still buy a new house." But stating it like buying 10 new Thompsons in 1929 is the same as buying 10 new Thompsons today (in house-equivalent dollars) is inaccurate. And yes, buying them new is exactly how these comparisons are understood by most normal people. Trying to say otherwise playing fast and lose with common expectations.

Edit: as to further drive the point home, here is a newish production FA Thompson post sample gun for only $4.5K thus driving home the point that it is indeed only historic, properly papered examples that are priced to 1/10th of new home prices. And even that seems to be overpriced due to the vagaries of the dealer sample market, and how regulation plays havoc with pricing even in a market where you can buy new. Point being it is not really the gun that costs that much, it is the paperwork that comes with the gun that costs that much.

 

[kmk1012]

Just how long does it take to measure a penis? Are we in three days or only two?

 

[Flopsweat]

Which would cost ~2k if it were not for NFA restrictions, as if it were bought in 1929. Which is exactly my point. Thompsons made today cost ~2k, it is only the historic examples from pre-1984 that cost new car prices.

Or are you going to say "a bottle of wine only cost an hour's wages in 1945. Today a bottle of wine costs as much as a new house!"? No, you would not. You would look at equivalent production today to make that comparison, not a historic example that can never be made again.

You want that meme to be accurate? Say "if you bough 10 Thompsons in 1929 it would have cost you as much as a new house then. If you sole those same 10 Thompsons today you could still buy a new house." But stating it like buying 10 new Thompsons in 1929 is the same as buying 10 new Thompsons today (in house-equivalent dollars) is inaccurate. And yes, buying them new is exactly how these comparisons are understood by most normal people. Trying to say otherwise playing fast and lose with common expectations.

Edit: as to further drive the point home, here is a newish production FA Thompson post sample gun for only $4.5K thus driving home the point that it is indeed only historic, properly papered examples that are priced to 1/10th of new home prices. And even that seems to be overpriced due to the vagaries of the dealer sample market, and how regulation plays havoc with pricing even in a market where you can buy new. Point being it is not really the gun that costs that much, it is the paperwork that comes with the gun that costs that much.

Holy crap just shut up.

 

[lucusloc]

Holy crap just shut up.

I will when I feel my point has been made.

 

[oremike]

I will when I feel my point has been made.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXGOmvWKXBE&list=OLAK5uy_laUcPnw7sYz3RrdKMNV1Zq4uFRsVSHJVo&index=8

 

[Deavis]

I will when I feel my point has been made.

You made it. You don't know what original Thompsons or houses sell for in today's market.

 

[WEE]

 

[lucusloc]

You made it. You don't know what original Thompsons or houses sell for in today's market.

I know what they both cost. My question is why are you comparing the price of an original and not a new production? Or are you going to say "a bottle of wine only cost an hour's wages in 1945. Today a bottle of wine costs as much as a new house!"? (yes, I am quoting myself with the question. Until you can answer that no further progress can be made on the conversation because we will be talking about two completely different things.)

No one does commodity comparisons ("The price of X in <history> costs the same as Y today!") by using the current price of an antique X and a contemporary Y. They compare it to new production. A contemporary production Thompson to a contemporary house, either in 1929 or today. Guess what, contemporary production Thompsons do not cost $20,000+, and contemporary homes also do not cost ~$20,000. The only way you make the comparison work is to compare a home today to the price of a 90 year old antique going up for auction today.

So to compare contemporary to contemporary;

Net Thompson in 1929: ~$225
New home in 1929: ~$5000

not quite 10 to 1, but in the ballpark so we don't have to split hairs.

New Thomson today: ~$2000 (or ~$4500 for dealer sample only, if you must insist that the comparison be FA to FA, and not Thompson to Thompson).
New home today: ~$400,000

that is off from the 10 to 1 claim by an order of magnitude.

The only way you get the 10 to 1 ratio today is to compare the price of a new, contemporary house to that of a properly papered, fully transferable antique (because not even antique dealer samples got for 10's of thousands, unpapered dealer sample antiques are also sub $10k, thus proving it is not the gun that goes for ~$20k, it is the paperwork that goes for that much).

Or, you know, you can explain to me how you think a bottle of whine today costs as much as a new hose simply because someone somewhere bought an antique bottle of the stuff for ~$400k. I'll wait.

 

[Grumpy 1]

 

[Richo877]

I know what they both cost. My question is why are you comparing the price of an original and not a new production? Or are you going to say "a bottle of wine only cost an hour's wages in 1945. Today a bottle of wine costs as much as a new house!"? (yes, I am quoting myself with the question. Until you can answer that no further progress can be made on the conversation because we will be talking about two completely different things.)

No one does commodity comparisons ("The price of X in <history> costs the same as Y today!") by using the current price of an antique X and a contemporary Y. They compare it to new production. A contemporary production Thompson to a contemporary house, either in 1929 or today. Guess what, contemporary production Thompsons do not cost $20,000+, and contemporary homes also do not cost ~$20,000. The only way you make the comparison work is to compare a home today to the price of a 90 year old antique going up for auction today.

So to compare contemporary to contemporary;

Net Thompson in 1929: ~$225
New home in 1929: ~$5000

not quite 10 to 1, but in the ballpark so we don't have to split hairs.

New Thomson today: ~$2000 (or ~$4500 for dealer sample only, if you must insist that the comparison be FA to FA, and not Thompson to Thompson).
New home today: ~$400,000

that is off from the 10 to 1 claim by an order of magnitude.

The only way you get the 10 to 1 ratio today is to compare the price of a new, contemporary house to that of a properly papered, fully transferable antique (because not even antique dealer samples got for 10's of thousands, unpapered dealer sample antiques are also sub $10k, thus proving it is not the gun that goes for ~$20k, it is the paperwork that goes for that much).

Or, you know, you can explain to me how you think a bottle of whine today costs as much as a new hose simply because someone somewhere bought an antique bottle of the stuff for ~$400k. I'll wait.

If the government restricted and regulated the sale of houses and made you register and get a special license for a specific type of house and the prices of those houses were significantly inflated relative to the cost of commonly accessible houses, then I think you'd be on to something. Let's inspect the meme specifically in question. It shows the same gun in both pictures. That SAME gun sells today for $30k. $300K can buy a house. I don't see the confusion and the point in muddying the water with hypotheticals and "well if the gubernment didn't regulate them..." they did. Thems the facts. The meme holds. Fin.

 

[lucusloc]

If the government restricted and regulated the sale of houses and made you register and get a special license for a specific type of house and the prices of those houses were significantly inflated relative to the cost of commonly accessible houses, then I think you'd be on to something. Let's inspect the meme specifically in question. It shows the same gun in both pictures. That SAME gun sells today for $30k. $300K can buy a house. I don't see the confusion and the point in muddying the water with hypotheticals and "well if the gubernment didn't regulate them..." they did. Thems the facts. The meme holds. Fin.

I suppose here we are also talking about an exact and specific pile of wood, and not a commodity good that is fungible throughout time. I mean, they are the exact same picture right?

Commodity comparisons are generic, not specific. Contemporary to contemporary, not contemporary to antique.

Silly argument is silly.