Older Glocks as "investments" and their value

[Calibreeze]

Does anyone ever wonder if this BIG gun companies and these politicians rage bait us and make deals? This GLOCK V Was planned well before Nusollini and this BAN were in motion.

Just looking at the timing and money it's generating seems a little suspicious.

every policy or law isn't to stop us from doing it, its to cost us more. The roster doesn't stop us from buying, it makes private party sale MORE. Everything is a hidden tax. Sometimes I see these big brands and politicians/laws and thing we are being played.

just my conspiracy.

Just the Democrats trying to please their constituents. And law abiding firearm owners pay the price. As for conspiracy theories. One can’t be naive and believe that the consumer is not being played by these large companies. I would say it’s manipulation. Most often companies with manipulate people and persuade them through genius marketing.

 

[couragewolf]

I do not mind an LCI if done tastefully. Better than a press check and I the tactile conformation in the dark is a plus.

I’m not a fan however when it is added as an afterthought just checking a box for the roster and not any thought put into its placement, design, or aesthetic.

I was gonna say honestly the LCI seems convenient to me? I'm not sure why everyone hates it so much?

 

[couragewolf]

Tell that to the boomers who snatched up all the Mosins in early 2000 for $150 or less and are now selling them on GunBroker for $2000+.

Who is dumb enough to buy them at this price though

 

[couragewolf]

I'd tell you how, but given the Commiefornian responses on here, I'd probably get mass reported. But they'd be very effective. Right tool for the right job type thing.

Bro do you hold your pistol sideways

 

[Delta925]

Who is dumb enough to buy them at this price though

I ask myself the same thing but clearly somebody is, check the prices for yourself. It is contemptible to say the least. Price elasticity of demand..

 

[SomeOne]

Just the Democrats trying to please their constituents.

I don't think Dem constituents prioritize it, essentially. This is more like a made-up agenda, which Dem party pushing out real hard. Now, since they push it hard, the brainwashed Dem voters follow the party line. This way it looks like a grassroot move, while it's really an artificially construed problem.
Then again, Dem politicians painted a big scary issue, now they are eager to show the voters they are working hard on fixing something, that doesn't exist. The Glock ban is a great example of it, along with the roster, ammo BG check ,etc.

Anyone would disagree?

 

[ikeo1]

I don't think Dem constituents prioritize it, essentially. This is more like a made-up agenda, which Dem party pushing out real hard. Now, since they push it hard, the brainwashed Dem voters follow the party line. This way it looks like a grassroot move, while it's really an artificially construed problem.
Then again, Dem politicians painted a big scary issue, now they are eager to show the voters they are working hard on fixing something, that doesn't exist. The Glock ban is a great example of it, along with the roster, ammo BG check ,etc.

Anyone would disagree?

I think you’re oversimplifying things.

There seems to be a lack of action when it comes to crimes involving guns. I’ve personally had multiple experiences and nothing changes. The requirement is that we accept it which is why I got trained and educate people as a response but people have fight or flight responses.

From political perspectives victims are collateral damage even CK himself. Just another part of the news cycle while the problem continues. This is a response whether good or bad it’s a response. To a number of people it’s better than doing nothing.

This is the distinction. There are more and more people who fall victim to criminals who carry guns and they know they feel helpless and don’t want to carry themselves. You and all of us here accept that risk/responsibility.

I always say, SCOTUS can rule on it whenever they want but this is a wedge issue for control of the population. The way people MUST choose a side is the control. People are afraid, especially if it impacted them because it’s traumatic. You look at it like a political view, to others it’s a safety view. In the US, freedom is owning a gun to protect your safety. Else where freedom is walking around freely without feeling the need for a firearm. It’s different perspectives.

To those people I ask, but you’re ok with LEO/MIL, they say yes. It’s a responsibility thing imo. People would rather focus on their lives

Edit: Think of it like Sigs response to the P320 issue. Rather than fix anything, they said it’s not a problem and blamed the user, you're a liberal if you believe theres a problem (wedge issue). Glock is taking action. In the macro view people will respect Glock more than Sig Sauer because they chose to acknowledge the issue and address it. Glock will have a stronger reputation. If we get a better firearm even better.

 

[SomeOne]

I think you’re oversimplifying things.

I respect your stance, but also respectfully disagree here. Very few, if any, CA gun laws are aimed to mitigate the crime issue. Instead, they are clearly making gun ownership expensive and exclusive. What specific crime does Glock ban solve? How many instances of making a fully-automated GLOCK were found in California.
Indeed, people fell the victims of crime all the time. However, instead of solving the root cause issue, CA Dem party's simply switching cards. Their message is "criminals are good, guns are bad". They promote leniency on prosecuting of the known street criminals, while turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals for a mere possession of an artefact, that is perfectly legal in the vast majority of the states. Do they really solve the crime issue, or do they push out a made-up gun control agenda?
Don't you feel it smells bad?

 

[chefdude]

naw no investment there are just too many

 

[couragewolf]

I respect your stance, but also respectfully disagree here. Very few, if any, CA gun laws are aimed to mitigate the crime issue. Instead, they are clearly making gun ownership expensive and exclusive. What specific crime does Glock ban solve? How many instances of making a fully-automated GLOCK were found in California.
Indeed, people fell the victims of crime all the time. However, instead of solving the root cause issue, CA Dem party's simply switching cards. Their message is "criminals are good, guns are bad". They promote leniency on prosecuting of the known street criminals, while turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals for a mere possession of an artefact, that is perfectly legal in the vast majority of the states. Do they really solve the crime issue, or do they push out a made-up gun control agenda?
Don't you feel it smells bad?

Do we have data to back this up, cause I’m pretty sure California has less gun related homicides per capita than much more “2a open” states.

I think the laws here are bs but let’s not wave a magic wand and pretend Houston Texas is a fantasy safety land where every gun owner is in heaven and criminals cower in their homes at night knowing brave steak eaters are on duty protecting their televisions and car windows.

Note when I lived in a much nicer neighborhood in Houston than I do in LA home invasions during broad daylight we’re constantly occurring, you would hear all the time about fully automatic gunfights at popular crowded places like malls and car dealerships and , and I literally saw on more than one occasion just random aggressive brandishing occurring on the freeway with my own eyes.

I think Texas laws on guns are restrictive, I think republicans are just as horrible as democrats, and I think California gun laws should be completely abolished but it’s pretty clear that California has better gun crime stats than Texas. Whether that’s the laws or not is up to your favorite news caster to tell you but I think you’ve got it mixed up if you’re trying to pretend otherwise.

 

[SteelChallengeFiend]

Bro do you hold your pistol sideways

Come to a USPSA or Steel Challenge competition and find out.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Do we have data to back this up, cause I’m pretty sure California has less gun related homicides per capita than much more “2a open” states.

I think the laws here are bs but let’s not wave a magic wand and pretend Houston Texas is a fantasy safety land where every gun owner is in heaven and criminals cower in their homes at night knowing brave steak eaters are on duty protecting their televisions and car windows.

Note when I lived in a much nicer neighborhood in Houston than I do in LA home invasions during broad daylight we’re constantly occurring, you would hear all the time about fully automatic gunfights at popular crowded places like malls and car dealerships and , and I literally saw on more than one occasion just random aggressive brandishing occurring on the freeway with my own eyes.

I think Texas laws on guns are restrictive, I think republicans are just as horrible as democrats, and I think California gun laws should be completely abolished but it’s pretty clear that California has better gun crime stats than Texas. Whether that’s the laws or not is up to your favorite news caster to tell you but I think you’ve got it mixed up if you’re trying to pretend otherwise.

Not only is gun crime statistically worse in Texas than here, it's one of the few places in the world it's actually gone up as they have liberalized gun laws with first open carry then permit less concealed carry. They are back to 1990s level of gun crime stats which was the worst it's ever been in history. The Glock switch law was likely a response to the Sacramento shooting in 2002 that happened downtown, 6 people dead plus 12 injured. They supposedly used a Glock switch. The issue of whether guns make us safer or not is one of "the average gun owner". Does the average gun owner train and properly secure their guns so they can't be stolen? Nope. Being good at shooting is a fringe case, just look at everyone at your CCW class, it's F-ed up.

 

[couragewolf]

Come to a USPSA or Steel Challenge competition and find out.

If you know how to shoot why are you so worried about people who don’t

 

[ikeo1]

I respect your stance, but also respectfully disagree here. Very few, if any, CA gun laws are aimed to mitigate the crime issue. Instead, they are clearly making gun ownership expensive and exclusive. What specific crime does Glock ban solve? How many instances of making a fully-automated GLOCK were found in California.
Indeed, people fell the victims of crime all the time. However, instead of solving the root cause issue, CA Dem party's simply switching cards. Their message is "criminals are good, guns are bad". They promote leniency on prosecuting of the known street criminals, while turning law-abiding gun owners into criminals for a mere possession of an artefact, that is perfectly legal in the vast majority of the states. Do they really solve the crime issue, or do they push out a made-up gun control agenda?
Don't you feel it smells bad?

I get your position too and that's what's really frustrating.

The relaxed laws and prison times make it so people who do hard crimes get out. I think if you look around the world where there are strict gun laws, crimes involving guns are low but they do happen. They are trying to use that model here. Why? Because like you said it's expensive and exclusive. Criminals typically don't want to spend or have a lot of money, which is why they take from other people at least for petty crime.

If you were to ask LEO, they might ask why do you need a switch or a glock capable of being modified to accept switches. The big issue with a switch is that it's very indiscriminate when people use them. People already suck without switches, give them a switch and they'll spray who ever is in front of them. Police and state government will have more recent data.



What you call an agenda, isn't an agenda for someone like me. I think it all depends where and how you grew up.

Overall I share your frustration with criminals. If it were an issue though, again SCOTUS can step in at any time and overrule the state. The issue is they pick and choose what they want to keep people against each other.

I don't think they're criminalizing if you own a gen 3,4,5, you can still PPT Glocks.

I think 2A politicians have to come up with something better than no change and acceptance of collateral damage as a consequence of freedom. It's a bit disingenuous to people who suffered loss. I don't have the answer but I don't see solutions other than telling people to STFU and get over it. That's ultimately what makes it go nowhere. For the time being, we'll just try to educate and help people protect themselves and their families.

Glocks are really amazing firearms and a real engineering marvel. It’s good it’s being updated and amazing that it can do everything it does. It always works. In the wrong hands they can be devastating, so I understand the reluctance, but like bump stocks SCOTUS can overturn anything if they want to.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

The only "leniency" on crime that happened in California was a voter referendum, not the legislature and not politicians but voters, and it was de facto repealed by a series of bills passedby bipartisan legislature with Newsom at the helm. There is absolutely no soft on crime attitude from the Democratic leadership in the state and there never was any change in violent crime policy. Even the homelessness issue, before a couple years ago there was a court decision that said you couldn't kick homeless out of publicly owned land unless there were shelter beds. That got overturned and overnight the state policy changed and they were kicking people out. I don't even know where people get these ideas.

 

[DudeFromTheWest]

I don't buy them for investing. I buy them because I like shooting them. I essentially bought 2 extras in case one broke in a way that could not be fixed, I would have a spare or two. Not to sell. If you are planning on using them for "investment", you would be better off buying stocks or ETF funds. Guns are not a good "investment", of you are planning on making money. Also my guns are to shoot, not to sit.

 

[doggman61]

I doubt in my lifetime gen 3-5 will be worth much more than what MSRP is.
That being said, I would like to have a gen 1 17 because it's where it all started (fanboi)

 

[Calibreeze]

I don't think Dem constituents prioritize it, essentially. This is more like a made-up agenda, which Dem party pushing out real hard. Now, since they push it hard, the brainwashed Dem voters follow the party line. This way it looks like a grassroot move, while it's really an artificially construed problem.
Then again, Dem politicians painted a big scary issue, now they are eager to show the voters they are working hard on fixing something, that doesn't exist. The Glock ban is a great example of it, along with the roster, ammo BG check ,etc.

Anyone would disagree?

Well said!! You nailed it!!

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Well said!! You nailed it!!

I think most CA politicians and especially Newsom are responding to who is yelling the loudest, the anti gun lobby is super strong while the pro gun lobby barely exists here and has poor messaging. I do truly think the roster is a solution looking for a problem, it's no better evidenced than the fact that gen 3 Glocks were easily switchable while gen 5s had already been fixed. I do actually think these legislators think they are doing good but there's no one in the conversation to argue against it.

 

[treelogger]

... but it’s pretty clear that California has better gun crime stats than Texas.

Not only is gun crime statistically worse in Texas than here, it's one of the few places in the world it's actually gone up ...

It's complicated. California has higher violent crime rates (that is lots of things from murder to assault) than Texas: In in 2024: California 486.0, Texas 389.4 (per 100K people). That ~20% difference is statistically very significant. Change over time, only since Covid (since it changed everywhere significantly between 2019 and 2020): California has bounced around between 442.0 and 506.9 in 2020-2024, with no clear trend. Texas has moved from 446.5 to 389.4 during the same time, with a clear downward trend in the last 4 years.

On the other hand, Texas has a higher homicide (murder etc.) rate than California, about 6.7 versus 5.4 (again per 100K). And in Texas, a higher fraction of all homicides are committed with guns, 5.2 versus 3.9.

And if one looks at all firearm deaths (which includes homicide, suicide, and accidents), it is much higher in Texas than in California, 15.3 versus 8.6.

Another thing to remember is that these are averages over very large states. Just breaking it down by county within California shows remarkable differences. As an example, the violent crime rate in Orange and Santa Clara counties are ~200 and ~260 per 100K, while Alameda (Oakland!), San Joaquin (Stockton!), and San Francisco counties are ~660, ~760 and ~820. Much of the middle-class portions of the state are exceedingly safe, with examples such as Irvine and Cupertino at a rate of 49 and 66 on the same scale. This is offset by places like San Bernardino 992, Compton 1149, Stockton 1331 and Oakland 1685. What this really means is that a state-wide average is pretty meaningless, since the safer communities have about 20x less crime than the unsafe ones.

My educated guess is that there are nearly zero "Glock happy switches" in places like Saratoga and San Marino (deliberately picking wealthy and safe small towns). And that they are all over Oakland, Stockton and Compton. Conversely, gun collectors in Saratoga and San Marino typically have no problem paying $1200 for a NIB Glock 19.3 (as advertised here on the forum), while the "good people" of Oakland/Stockton/Compton mostly by them for much less on the black market. It's really a tale of two cities, to quote ens.