Excellent essay, thanks for the link. Since I was already familiar with most of the facts, this was the part that stood out to me the most:
This meant that prices for these firearms and magazines shot up along with demand. Manufacturers had churned out as many soon-to-be-banned items as they could before it went into effect, then sold them at nearly twice what they had originally cost. Individual dealers who had already stocked up made small fortunes.
So my main take away from the essay was “damn, I should start stockpiling assaulty-looking guns as an investment, since they’re likely going to be re-banned now”. Does that make me a horrible person?
So my main take away from the essay was “damn, I should start stockpiling assaulty-looking guns as an investment, since they’re likely going to be re-banned now”. Does that make me a horrible person?
I don’t think it makes you a horrible person, though it does seem to be surprisingly difficult to make a lot of money fast by making people’s lives better. Perhaps it’s not surprising that there’s a lot of money in supernormal stimuli.
I’ve been reading *Antifragile”, so.… what’s the downside? Would you be better off just getting an option on a bunch of scary-looking weapons?
Why do you assume that this doesn’t make people’s lives better? You know perfectly well that the vast majority of those assaulty-looking guns are just going to wind up with collectors who already own enough firepower to conquer Hawaii. But owning banned stuff makes them happy, and what’s wrong with that?
The two of you seem to be talking past each other, so I think it would be useful if you both stepped back and stated in specific, concrete terms, what position you’re actually arguing for.
I did not mean to assert that. I meant to assert that being able to buy guns despite the ban makes people’s lives better if you take the ban as an exogenous fact. I can understand the confusion though, my original comment was somewhat ambiguous.
Excellent essay, thanks for the link. Since I was already familiar with most of the facts, this was the part that stood out to me the most:
So my main take away from the essay was “damn, I should start stockpiling assaulty-looking guns as an investment, since they’re likely going to be re-banned now”. Does that make me a horrible person?
I don’t think it makes you a horrible person, though it does seem to be surprisingly difficult to make a lot of money fast by making people’s lives better. Perhaps it’s not surprising that there’s a lot of money in supernormal stimuli.
I’ve been reading *Antifragile”, so.… what’s the downside? Would you be better off just getting an option on a bunch of scary-looking weapons?
Why do you assume that this doesn’t make people’s lives better? You know perfectly well that the vast majority of those assaulty-looking guns are just going to wind up with collectors who already own enough firepower to conquer Hawaii. But owning banned stuff makes them happy, and what’s wrong with that?
Ruby Ridge. Even occasional enforcement can have high costs.
What does Ruby Ridge have to do with turning a profit on ban arbitrage?
I was disagreeing with your idea that the ban makes people’s lives better.
The two of you seem to be talking past each other, so I think it would be useful if you both stepped back and stated in specific, concrete terms, what position you’re actually arguing for.
I did not mean to assert that. I meant to assert that being able to buy guns despite the ban makes people’s lives better if you take the ban as an exogenous fact. I can understand the confusion though, my original comment was somewhat ambiguous.