Man ROBBED at local Gun Store

[Jasongar8]

This. Right here. Is truth.

Having been on both sides of the counter. YOU may be of the opinion that they "stole" the guns from him. I actuality they negotiated a price to where both parties were satisfied, agreed and finalized it.

OP, with your superior morals why did you not interrupt and tell the guy he was receiving less than optimal value for his guns?

Why stay silent?

I see no foul. just an uneducated customer. Caveat Emptor.

He could have pulled the plug on the deal at any time. Again, why not step in if you saw this supposed tragedy?

my .02c, for what it's worth.

Mike

I totally agree and I wondered the same thing.

Maybe the guy had no use or need for the old guns and wanted a new one. If he wasn't happy with the deal then he wouldn't have done it.

[BigK]

My wife bought me the wrong pistol for Christmas (right brand, similar size, but wrong model). I've heard that once a firearm is sold, it can never be re-sold as new. Yet the my local gun shop, where she got it gave me full retail price toward the one I wanted.

Mind you, this was the 3rd gun I'd bought from them, but still...they did me right! In fact they did me so right that I actually felt bad when they didn't have the next gun I wanted and I had to buy it elsewhere.

When someone treats me fairly, I remeber them in my comments to others and with my wallet. I have boutght another gun from them since this happened and will continue to give them as much business as I can afford to. I'd recommend Specialty Arms in La Vergne to anyone.

[USMCJG]

I just can't understand how anyone can condone this behavior as reported here. I realize that a sucker is born every minute, but there's a thief born every minute too.

A few years ago a client overpaid me by several hundred dollars for some work. Apparently she had forgotten the price we had originally agreed upon. When I looked at the check after I got home, I immediately called and informed her that she had overpaid and drove across town to her house to get a new check for the correct amount. She would have never known she had overpaid, but I knew. Just the other day I was at Waffle House paying my check. I noticed that the waitress was about to give me $1 more change than I was due. I told her that she was about to give me too much change. She would have never known, but I knew. I don't care if it's $1 or $1,000, My soul is not for sale. I will never take advantage of another person even if they should have known better. And I have no use for anyone who could.

[Mike]

That is completely different. It's not like they gave him less money than they had agreed upon.

This is a two sided issue. Both parties have to be in agreement for this deal to go through. They didn't do anything without his consent and approval.

[USMCJG]

That is completely different. It's not like they gave him less money than they had agreed upon.

This is a two sided issue. Both parties have to be in agreement for this deal to go through. They didn't do anything without his consent and approval.

Read the next to last sentence of my post again. Also, it's not exactly completely different. In both examples that I had provided the other party essentially "agreed" to the "deal" through ignorance or oversight. I didn't because it wasn't right. Period. Even though in both cases I would have been the beneficiary in the "deal". Edited July 25, 2010 by USMCJG

[Guest 70below]

While no one likes to get taken, each person makes their own decisions in life. In a capitalistic society, an item is only worth what someone is willing to pay, and what someone is willing to take. The man made a deal he was satisfied with, they were his pistols, it was his choice. If someone would have offered that to me, I would have laughed and walked out, but that is my choice, and yes I would remember it. Had I been standing there, I would have probably said that I thought he could do better, I might not have been welcome back at that store, but would it really matter if I felt they we're taking advantage of people? We've become a society of people that are stupid financially and we expect others to be smart for us. Someday that man may feel he got taken, but only then, will he learn from his mistake and be a more educated consumer. We see a shop behave in that manner, then our capital vote is our dollar, and we don't have to cast it there if we don't see fit.

[Guest tnxdshooter]

I remember when legends was open in Athens. I bought a new Glock 36 there, shot it about 20 times and realized it wasn't for me. I took it back to legends the next day they wanted to give me $200.00 trading for it after I just paid over $500.00 for it. Your best bet is to sell your guns out right and never take it to a gun shop or a pawnshop, all you will do is get your feelings hurt if you take your gun to one of those places...

Um dude you did shoot the gun.

[enfield]

When you take advantage of another person's ignorance (or even stupidity), you're a thief. It is what it is. Black and White.

Remember the Golden Rule?

[bubbiesdad]

When you take advantage of another person's ignorance (or even stupidity), you're a thief. It is what it is. Black and White.

Remember the Golden Rule?

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. "

— Augustine of Hippo

[gregintenn]

Where's the line between thievery and getting a bargain?

[Jasongar8]

When you take advantage of another person's ignorance (or even stupidity), you're a thief. It is what it is. Black and White.

Remember the Golden Rule?

I guess I missed the part about the dealer holding a gun to the mans head and making him do the deal. I guess the government should step in and pass some kind of laws that protect people from selling their guns too cheap. He wasn't forced to do the deal, I don't know what some of you guys don't understand about that.

[USMCJG]

I guess I missed the part about the dealer holding a gun to the mans head and making him do the deal. I guess the government should step in and pass some kind of laws that protect people from selling their guns too cheap. He wasn't forced to do the deal, I don't know what some of you guys don't understand about that.

It's a matter of right and wrong. Some people get the difference and some people don't. It's really as simple as that. Also, I'm fairly certain no one here wants to see any more laws passed. But just imagine how many fewer laws and problems we would have right now if more people just remembered the golden rule.

[Handsome Rob]

So, I guess this means it's now perfectly acceptable to jump in on classified threads, telling the seller that their gun is over/underpriced, yes?

Bottom line is, if you trade anything old (whether 1 day or 100 years) against something new from a professional merchant you are absolutley, 100%, without a doubt, going to receive way, way less that it's market value. Some may argue that he could've paid more & made less money, but why the hell should he? He is in business to make money. As much money as he possibly can, the same as any other business.

It's unfortunate, but in the real world, if someone offers to sell you something for ½ it's value, let's be honest, you're unlikely in the extreme to try & offer them full value, are you? Of course you're not! You're gonna buy it at half price & then go tell everyone you know what a good deal you got!!

As has been mentioned countless times, it takes 2 to make a bargain. At any time, either party could've backed out.

[Guest 70below]

It was mentioned that the man trading in the guns said he would take what he could get because he really wanted the other pistol. That says to me that he was satisfied with what he got, no golden rule broken. If the man was selling his pistols to buy food to support his family, I would be more upset than him trading two firearms towards another because he "wanted it". The man is entitled to place his own value on his own property. Who knows, he may have gotten those pistols for free from a friend or family member. He may even have stolen them, which increases the liability of the shop buying the guns.

[vontar]

It does sound like he was in a hurry to sell them.

Most people would know if you are trading 2 for one with Boot, you are either getting soemthing really worth allot of you are going for a ride.

I had some of the same thoughs as 70below about the risk and liability of the shop if the guns were stolen or if they had something wrong with them.

[BigK]

I would like to thank the people on this thread that see the described story as being unjust. There is some hope for morality in this country.

Some people misunderstand the economic theory here. The price the market will bear and the price the seller is willing to accept meet at a general point that is only slightly flexible. One unfortunate guy trying to trade his guns for a new one does NOT represent the average consumer and this dispicable salesman does NOT represent the average supplier. All of us wouldn't know he got cheated if we didn't know what the market would bear. Likewise the salesman did and used his superior knowledge to take advantage of someone. He was being trusted as an expert with greater knowledge than the customer and he could have been fair, but he chose not to.

Now, we can only hope RB learns a little lesson in economics. If this story spreads and enough people are angry, they lose sales. This is what Milton Friedman said would happen in a purely capitalistic system. Dishonest suppliers will take advantage of some, but will be exposed for their shady dealings and cease to be able to do business with honest consuers.

[USMCJG]

It's unfortunate, but in the real world, if someone offers to sell you something for ½ it's value, let's be honest, you're unlikely in the extreme to try & offer them full value, are you? Of course you're not! You're gonna buy it at half price & then go tell everyone you know what a good deal you got!!

I would offer close to full value, yes. Hypothetical situation- You go to a little old lady's yard sale and she is selling a gun for $50 and you know for a fact that it's worth $500 minimum. The little old lady has no idea what she has. Are you saying that you would buy it for the $50 asking price? And then go brag to your friends about how you took this stupid old lady to the cleaners on your new gun? You can't tell me that you would actually do that can you?

Yes it is true that the person in the OP accepted the deal without a gun to his head. He accepted the deal because he didn't know any better. The gun shop in the OP took advantage of his ignorance. I will never think that that's okay no matter what rationalization anyone uses. Sorry, but that's just the way it is as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Can't read the mind of the seller, but my general attitude about selling property is that it is a lot of hassle. I don't mind buying FTF under certain conditions, but probably wouldn't try to sell a gun thru a newspaper or online ad just because it's too much trouble.

If I unload a gun to a dealer, it is clear discharge of my ownership, relieves me of any future legal responsibilities and it is minimal hassle.

It would be very rare I'd sell a gun, because I don't buy anything unless I'm certain I want it. But if I decide I don't want a gadget, then dumping it as easy as possible would be desirable.

I don't mind folks making profit off a transaction. You can't stay in biz unless you make a profit.

Some markets have real low resale value, others high resale value. I'm accustomed to music and electronic equipment, where most items except vintage geetars are near worthless 10 minutes after you paid $2000 for the item. So you expect to pay nearly nothing on used music gear, and expect to get nearly nothing when selling used music gear. If you can't find a desirable music gadget used and cheap, you make dern certain you want the thang (and that the item will return its investment) before you bite the bullet and buy new with warranty.

Other items like guns or high-end telescopes hold surprisingly high resale value. But I just can't get into that mindset. If a new item costs $1000 and typically sells used for $900 then I'd just as soon avoid the hassle and risk of buying used. Easier and more reliable to pay a little more and buy new with a warranty.

Maybe the fellow could have made a better deal. I don't believe in getting skinned on deals. But if the fellow didn't want the guns and didn't care to hassle running an ad to sell the gun to a stranger in a walmart parking lot, then maybe it seemed a good deal to trade despite the low trade-in allowance.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[BigK]

I do not suggest that a gun shop offer someone $100 in trade for an item they can only sell for $100, forgoing a reasonable profit.

I only suggest that if they know an item is worth $320 and the customer truly has no idea of the value, offering $80 is not an honest practice unless a 300% markup is your standard margin.

That's what the goose that laid the golden egg parable was about. You get a little profit as time elapses on multiple occassions. Letting greed overwhelm you by cuttion open the goose to get all your profit at once is an epic failure.

Edited July 25, 2010 by BigK

[Handsome Rob]

Replace, "little old lady" with "wannbe Rambo type" Same situation? Same conclusion? Sorry, I just hate when appearances/perceptions are used to sway an argument.

In all honesty, no, I wouldn't conciously buy the gun for $50, but neither would I offer her full market on it either. $200 would seem reasonable to me. She's getting 4 times what she wanted & is obviously going to be happy, I'm getting it for under 50% of market value & I'm happy. This is all working on the supposition that I wanted to sell the gun on for a profit, as is the case in this thread. However, if the little old lady told me she just wanted rid, ASAP to buy a better gun & was happy to accept $50, then fair play, $50 it is.

[USMCJG]

Replace, "little old lady" with "wannbe Rambo type" Same situation? Same conclusion? Sorry, I just hate when appearances/perceptions are used to sway an argument.

Yes, exactly the same situation. Right and wrong is between me and my conscience, other parties don't have any bearing on it. I was just trying to see if there is a difference between the man in the OP and my little old lady.

And no one expects anyone to always get full market value for everything. There is a difference between full market and fair. I would offer my "little old lady", or your "wannbe Rambo type", at least $350. Any less and my conscience wouldn't allow it. My conscience is a hardass.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I would offer close to full value, yes. Hypothetical situation- You go to a little old lady's yard sale and she is selling a gun for $50 and you know for a fact that it's worth $500 minimum. The little old lady has no idea what she has. Are you saying that you would buy it for the $50 asking price? And then go brag to your friends about how you took this stupid old lady to the cleaners on your new gun? You can't tell me that you would actually do that can you?

Yes it is true that the person in the OP accepted the deal without a gun to his head. He accepted the deal because he didn't know any better. The gun shop in the OP took advantage of his ignorance. I will never think that that's okay no matter what rationalization anyone uses. Sorry, but that's just the way it is as far as I'm concerned.

At the same time, he could have looked up the value of his guns. If he was so worried,

as some on here are, for his welfare, he could have walked away.

Go pay the Reloader's Bench cost of operating his business and work at making a profit

before you folks go criticizing his business practices. You can always walk away from

a transaction. He knows what he can do to make a profit and stay in business. If he

offers a price and the seller accepts, it's called market value, at that moment.

I imagine I would have walked away, but you never know.

Market value is equal to what the buyer and seller agree to, without duress.

Hopefully the person that you guys say were screwed, had what's called

a "teachable moment".

[Mike]

Read the next to last sentence of my post again. Also, it's not exactly completely different. In both examples that I had provided the other party essentially "agreed" to the "deal" through ignorance or oversight. I didn't because it wasn't right. Period. Even though in both cases I would have been the beneficiary in the "deal".

I disagree, you are talking about a mistake. Someone miscounting. The situation with the gentleman had him understanding the exact price he would receive for his goods he was trading.

Also, at a gun shop you will never, ever, get what your stuff is worth. they are not in the business of buying at retail prices to sell... at retail prices. They buy at wholesale and sell at retail. Buy low... Sell high.

As far as your last line. Good for you.

One of the beautiful things about this country is our system of (mostly) free economics. You are not required to shop there. They are not required to sell you anything. They are not required to buy anything from you.

Mike

[hipower]

My pitiful 2 cents worth. We weren't there. We don't know the particulars. We are speculating on what did or did not happen. No ifs, ands, or, or buts. WE dont know. I've bought from RB exactly twice. Got a fair deal on an xd9sc last year, and bought 4 boxes of 22 mag late Saturday afternoon. And it was cheaper than the same brand at Wally World. And no, I don't know if this transpired while I was there.

If, as some speculate, this was a deliberate effort to shortchange the man on the deal, it will sure be revisited on them. At the very least all the negative commentary here will get back to the shop I'd think. And it probably will affect them somewhat. RB's reaction to all this could and should be seen before we get the rope out.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If the trades were unfairly below market value (dunno)--

Some folks thrive on horse-trading and are sad if they do a trade without wrangling. If the price wasn't haggled, they didn't get the chance to show their bargaining skills.

Other folks don't like horse-trading, and its hard to tell the different between the two. If you try to haggle a non-haggler, it can offend.

I don't have anything against horse-traders but do not enjoy haggling. So if a guy's offer is OK its a deal, and if the offer is not OK it is not a deal. Go or No Go. I can get annoyed if I cost a job then the prospective client wants to haggle about it. If I could do the job at a lower price, then I would have quoted a lower price to begin with!

A lop-sided deal could happen if you pair a horse-trader with a non-haggler. The horse-trader opens with a lowball offer, expecting to be haggled higher, but then the non-haggler spoils the fun by accepting the first offer. If at this point, the horse-trader experiences a pang of conscience that he's taking advantage, then the horse-trader would have to pay higher (or sell lower) than the accepted deal, which is against human nature, and definitely against the nature of a horse-trader.

I don't like selling used because even if I have no knowledge that there is anything wrong with my gadget, it could fail as soon as the buyer takes the gadget home. Then I'd look like a creep taking advantage of the buyer. On the other hand, if I'm tired of a gadget I don't want to offer any kind of warranty. I don't want to see it again. Definitely don't wanna spend any time fixing the deal later if the gadget prematurely fails, or have some guy mad at me because he spent a lot of money on something essentially worthless.

So I tend to sell low final sale no warranty, just so there isn't any blowback or bad karma later. It is not the way to maximize profit.