Why are Glocks more expensive used than new?

[Scratch705]

as someone who is new to the hobby of guns, i would like it if more veteran members gave info on things such as pricing. since i might not know all the stores or websites that offer cheaper pricing, but are hard to search for.

i try to do as much research as i can before purchasing anything, but i can't spend 24/7 searching the web. even a PM to a potential buyer would be nice as to not "call out" the pricing if you feel like it. gives the buyer a choice and chance to save money.

[ro442173]

I am a libertarian too. What brand of libertarianism accepts free trade but rejects the free exchange of ideas and information? I have no problem with someone offering an item for whatever price they want to. If it's a fair price then they shouldn't be afraid of the truth, should they? Oh I forgot, men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Whups, that doesn't help me sell my gun for $100 dollars more than it's worth now does it?

Just asking.

One that believes in true laissez faire. Not to be confused what we currently have.

Dude, you just got to realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with you and you just got to let it be. You can't be the moral police... these things will happen with or without you.

Should sellers now request approval from a panel before putting up a sale?

[ro442173]

I am a libertarian too. What brand of libertarianism accepts free trade but rejects the free exchange of ideas and information? I have no problem with someone offering an item for whatever price they want to. If it's a fair price then they shouldn't be afraid of the truth, should they? Oh I forgot, men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Whups, that doesn't help me sell my gun for $100 dollars more than it's worth now does it?

Just asking.

BTW, no one is rejecting the free exchange of ideas and information. You are free to start your own website offering a for sale forum. As such, you have the right to make up your own rules and no one, I mean no one should have the right to tell you what those rules are. If they don't like it they can go elsewhere.

[bruss01]

One that believes in true laissez faire. Not to be confused what we currently have.

Dude, you just got to realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with you and you just got to let it be. You can't be the moral police... these things will happen with or without you.

Should sellers now request approval from a panel before putting up a sale?

You really have a weird take on libertarian thought if you don't see a difference between me voluntarily helping someone in need, vs someone putting a gun to my head and forcing me to help someone in need. Forcing someone to submit to board approval to make a post = not voluntary. Adding a reality check post to an overpriced for sale ad = voluntary. Decent people help each other voluntarily. Human turds in leisure suits simply walk past a woman being beaten on the sidewalk telling themselves "It's not my problem". Same is true to a lesser extent with standing idly by while someone gets ripped off, whether it's a mugging or through deceit, or taking advantage of someone's lack of knowledge or experience. I don't think it's right to turn the blind eye and claim you don't care. It's even worse to get in the way of those who DO care and offer to help voluntarily. Hey, if after the reality check the buyer and the seller are still jake (everything's cool and the sale proceeds) then it's no skin off my neck, as long as everyone is informed it is truly consensual.

[ro442173]

as someone who is new to the hobby of guns, i would like it if more veteran members gave info on things such as pricing. since i might not know all the stores or websites that offer cheaper pricing, but are hard to search for.

i try to do as much research as i can before purchasing anything, but i can't spend 24/7 searching the web. even a PM to a potential buyer would be nice as to not "call out" the pricing if you feel like it. gives the buyer a choice and chance to save money.

Putting up like a price guide list I don't have a problem with but guys jumping on a seller because they feel a product is way overpriced; is another thing. It's friggin socialism that I have to abide by your standards when it is my property.

Besides, what makes it overpriced can sometimes be a subjective observation, wouldn't you agree? I see ammo for sale that others think is a steal but that I think is a ripoff.

[neomentat]

Or a Paramedic....Glock offers the blue sticker deal for all LE/EMT/FIRE personnel. Great deal, I just bought a g17 and love it...

I remember 1 year ago Glock used to cost $319 to LEO & first responders, now they're running around $399, that's almost a 30% jump in price.

[ro442173]

You really have a weird take on libertarian thought if you don't see a difference between me voluntarily helping someone in need, vs someone putting a gun to my head and forcing me to help someone in need. Forcing someone to submit to board approval to make a post = not voluntary. Adding a reality check post to an overpriced for sale ad = voluntary. Decent people help each other voluntarily. Human turds in leisure suits simply walk past a woman being beaten on the sidewalk telling themselves "It's not my problem". Same is true to a lesser extent with standing idly by while someone gets ripped off, whether it's a mugging or through deceit, or taking advantage of someone's lack of knowledge or experience. I don't think it's right to turn the blind eye and claim you don't care. Hey, if after the reality check the buyer and the seller are still jake (everything's cool and the sale proceeds) then it's no skin off my neck, as long as everyone is informed it is truly consensual.

Seller selling for a price the buyer wants to buy it for= voluntary.
Buyer buying for what the seller wants it for= voluntary.
Interfering with the transaction and wanting to impose what you think is right... well, I'll let you think about that one.

We libertarians are a very fragmented group. It's one of our weeknesses. I myself have given this much thought... I have always come to the same conclusion: people wanting to impose their beliefs on other people is the problem. I myself am not guilty of this... it's human nature. The answer I have come up with is that you just have to step back. You have to look at both sides of the coin as equals. Both sides are valid. Now if both sides are valid then how do we conclude. Well, we conclude by choosing who owns the property. More often than not, the self-imposing bystander who has got nothing, nothing, to do with it will stick his ugly head out... sorry dude but you're that ugly bystander right now.

And I'm not bashing neither, let's keep it friendly

[bruss01]

Besides, what makes it overpriced can sometimes be a subjective observation, wouldn't you agree? I see ammo for sale that others think is a steal but that I think is a ripoff.

You just basically endorsed my definition of threadcrapping, friend. Saying "Oh, I wouldn't pay that much for a scratched up piece that's seen the kind of abuse you've put that poor thing through, I think it's only worth $xxx" is very different from asking "Nice gun, but can you tell me why you're asking $xxx when it is for sale at xyz.com for $98 less? Is there a bonus feature or a is it a limited model or something included that I overlooked?"

The first statement is subjective, based on opinion no matter how educated that opinion might be. The second, is raw unadulterated fact, it can be verified by anyone who cares to look. It is not crap, it is a fact, jack. And yet the way the threadcrapping policy is currently enforced here, someone who offers that information will be threatened with action and the information excised. It is that kind of suppression of truthful information that I object to.

[bruss01]

Seller selling for a price the buyer wants to buy it for= voluntary.
Buyer buying for what the seller wants it for= voluntary.
Interfering with the transaction and wanting to impose what you think is right... well, I'll let you think about that one.

We libertarians are a very fragmented group. It's one of our weeknesses. I myself have given this much thought... I have always come to the same conclusion: people wanting to impose their beliefs on other people is the problem. I myself am not guilty of this... it's human nature. The answer I have come up with is that you just have to step back. You have to look at both sides of the coin as equals. Both sides are valid. Now if both sides are valid then how do we conclude. Well, we conclude by choosing who owns the property. More often than not, the self-imposing bystander who has got nothing, nothing, to do with it will stick his ugly head out... sorry dude but you're that ugly bystander right now.

And I'm not bashing neither, let's keep it friendly

Agreed, no bashing on either end here, just spirited debate.

Interfering with the transaction and wanting to impose what you think is right...

That's where I think the misunderstanding is coming from, right there. I was not talking about nor endorsing imposing anything on anyone. Merely offering factual information can hardly be construed as imposing anything. There is no force involved, heck, people don't even have to read it if they don't want to. But the reverse cannot be said about stifling those who offer facts for public consideration. There is no choice involved. Truth is redacted, in effect endorsing deceit.

[ro442173]

You just basically endorsed my definition of threadcrapping, friend. Saying "Oh, I wouldn't pay that much for a scratched up piece that's seen the kind of abuse you've put that poor thing through, I think it's only worth $xxx" is very different from asking "Nice gun, but can you tell me why you're asking $xxx when it is for sale at xyz.com for $98 less? Is there a bonus feature or a is it a limited model or something included that I overlooked?"

The first statement is subjective, based on opinion no matter how educated that opinion might be. The second, is raw unadulterated fact, it can be verified by anyone who cares to look. It is not crap, it is a fact, jack. And yet the way the threadcrapping policy is currently enforced here, someone who offers that information will be threatened with action and the information excised. It is that kind of suppression of truthful information that I object to.

Dude read it again... my posts haven't been edited.

Endorsed your definition of threadcrapping... uh, negative. If I think it's overpriced then I'll look elsewhere. There's no need for me to leave a comment. If another calgunner thinks it's a good deal then he'll buy it... if he/she is stupid enough then that's them. What gives me the right to take business from another calgunner? I'll say that again, what gives me the right to take business away from another calgunner? Two varying points but which one is valid: the bystander or the owner of the property? If you go agaisnt the owner of the property, then how can you even consider yourself a libertarian? Property rights goes back to our fundamentals... do you think the property owners loves getting his thread crapped?

Again, since we're behind the keyboard, I am not bashing on you.

[Corbin Dallas]

After reading all the bickering back and forth I have but one question...

Whos job is it to value the item being sold? The buyer who has the money or the seller who has the goods?

What I may think of as a "value" may not be in the eyes of someone else.

So is it the intention of some members here to write the Kelly Blue Book of gun values? Will you take into account condition, round count, modifications, ownership by zip code, quantity of units sold, life expectancy of the item being sold and so on???

Bottom line is if you don't like the price, let the crickets do the talking.

[bruss01]

... do you think the property owners loves getting his thread crapped?

Again, since we're behind the keyboard, I am not bashing on you.

I think an honest person who was simply mistaken but was corrected with factual information may be initially disappointed that his gun wasn't worth as much as he thought, but if that person is honest he will not want to knowingly do wrong to a purchaser by overcharging. And he does not have to sell it cheaper if he decides he values his gun more than the true market value in cash.

A dishonest person, a gouger, trying to pawn off his used property at an inflated price to an unsuspecting buyer... yeah, he would get all bent I suppose about someone educating his "marks".

Interpreting threadcrapping as a purely factual post that acts as a reality check - which of the above does it protect? The crook, that's who.

Sure, I respect a property owner's right to do whatever he wants with his property. Keep it, sell it, or melt it down. It's his, to do with as he sees fit. But by the same token don't expect to put a gag on me when I try to post a fact as a reality check. If it keeps that property owner from making an unfair profit at someone else's expense, that is not a property rights issue. If he doesn't want to sell it at a reasonable price, then he doesn't have to. He can just keep it or wait until he finally finds someone who doesn't care about saving that $100. Simply exchanging factual information doesn't violate property rights.

[bruss01]

After reading all the bickering back and forth I have but one question...

Whos job is it to value the item being sold? The buyer who has the money or the seller who has the goods?

What I may think of as a "value" may not be in the eyes of someone else.

So is it the intention of some members here to write the Kelly Blue Book of gun values? Will you take into account condition, round count, modifications, ownership by zip code, quantity of units sold, life expectancy of the item being sold and so on???

Bottom line is if you don't like the price, let the crickets do the talking.

I would agree with you that it is entirely subjective, comparing one used gun to another. How much wear & tear, what's the round count, did they fire all lead, all copper, or a mix? Did they use any +P? Was it cleaned after every range trip? Truly, the variables are infinite and no two can be exactly alike. For that reason, there can be no absolute "blue book" value, only opinion, when comparing used guns to used guns.

However... if you are talking about comparing one new gun to another, or a new gun to a used gun, then you can rely on facts instead of opinion. If this used gun, no matter what round count, is priced higher than the exact same model gun in NEW condition offered by another seller at a lower price, then that is a fact, not a supposition, not an extrapolation, not a guestimate - it is a fact. A fact is not crap.

An honest seller will be able to justify any difference - "Yes it's higher but I am including a holster and a bonus box of ammo" or "It's higher because it'll cost you that much extra to get it shipped here" or "that handgun fell off the roster and is hard to get in the state now, which is why I can ask a higher price for this particular model". Heck, even say "It's higher because these are rough when bought new, and this one I have broken in properly until it's nice and smooth". Seller could even say "Yeah, it's a little high, but that's what I've got invested in it so that's my price". The important thing is that it is presented honestly, and the buyer is making an informed choice.

A dishonest seller will simply fume about some meddling busybody who got in the way just as he was about to ream an unsuspecting mark out of his beer money for the next month.

Whos job is it to value the item being sold?

Whose job, aside from the buyer and seller? If I were the buyer, I would take all the help I could get, volunteers welcome. And some people consider it just the right thing to do to prevent a wrong when they can. Not by force, but by simply standing up for the truth.

[ro442173]

I don't know dude, honestly I didn't think I'd have such a hard time explaining myself to a fellow libertarian. This will be my last post on the thread and I'm out on to the next one beacuse I really don't care.

Let me beat the dead horse in a different way. I am the seller and you are a bystander (since you're not a buyer that is what you are). It is my belief that I can sell my product for however much I want. You, the bystander disagree. I am forcing anyone to buy my product. Any person that doesn't want to pay my price is free to go about their business... no force is put on anyone.

Now here is the dillema. I the seller believe that I should have the right to sell my property how I please since no coercion is involved. You, the bystander, do not agree with this logic.

Who's point is more valid? Who should have higher ground in the matter? We both can't be right, can we?

Whereas you see it from the standpoint of buyer's rights, I see it from a seller's perscpective. Who gave you rights over my property?

It's not like you have a choice in the matter. You don't like how Calguns sides more with seller's rights vs. buyer's rights, then hey, it's easy... start your own website. If everyone here left and frequent that website, then we understand what the majority really wants. Personally I like the restriction on thread crapping so I'll stay.

Property rights is paramount to libertarian beliefs. Mines is mines. On that note, how many sellers do you think would like to be told how much to sell their property? What happened to the free market my fellow libertarian?

[ro442173]

Bottom line is if you don't like the price, let the crickets do the talking.

He called me a cricket. Moderators ban this guy!