I should actually correct my statement that I wouldnt pay for a gun I couldnt fire. I do plan to get an old pin-fire handgun someday, just to have as an example of another "step" in firearms evolution/innovation and while there is some old ammo out there you could buy to fire it, the ammo is priced as a collectable itself, so using it for plinking would be out of the realm of possibility for us average Joe's, and while it may be possible to make your own, I think that task is beyond my abilities personally, so that would be one I would buy, but not be able to fire.
But, the guns can be found for about $100, and sometimes less, so that wouldnt be too bad for something as a display/curiosity only.
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of collectors that buy $10,000 antiques, limited editions, John Wayne's gun, etc, but dont fire them due to it's effect on value. That I wouldnt do, even if I had $10,000 to spend. I'd either have to be able to shoot it, and eat the money I lose from firing it (and possibly wearing down a piece of history depending on the gun), or just not get it.Big difference between $100 gun that I dont fire because ammo is not available, and a $10,000 gun I dont fire because I'm afraid of affecting it's re-sale value.
I buy guns to shoot, or at least, to have as a curiosity or example of a certain point in history/firearms history, not to jsut say "I own John Wayne's gun", or to resell it to make money in the future. To each his own though, how other people spend thier money, and what they do or dont do with thier property is ceratinly none of my business, so I certainly dont "look down" on people who do things I wouldnt.