Ammo vendor scare tactics?

Are ammo vendors using scare tactics to sell ammo?

  • Yes, they are selling fear to sell ammo.

    Votes: 27 21.6%
  • No, there is going to be an ammo shortage.

    Votes: 13 10.4%
  • While there is ammo available today, there wont be after the election.

    Votes: 20 16.0%
  • Please stop talking about a possible ammo shortage.

    Votes: 65 52.0%

  • Total voters
    125
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The industry has been running on a razors edge as far as supply goes for years, just a small, sudden spike in demand, will send it crashing down.

I'm not trying to take Coloradoshooter to task for this, as it isn't inaccurate. But it does typify the alarmist side of the conversation and it's a great example - almost parody.

Our entire logistical chain of supply, including groceries, gas, and even beef works on a just in time system. First, it's expensive to store massive quantities of overproduction - just where would the Remington plant in Arkansas put 6 months production, for instance? They would have to build a massive warehouse space to store it, which would demand a lot of munitions specialty considerations. Imagine a field of bunkers each separated by at least 1,000 yards from each other. It takes a lot of real estate. Not on dime of that money spent makes profit. Ever. It would bankrupt the smaller producers.

Then there's the issue of the ,Gov taxing inventory. Not a good situation and another expense. It's exactly the reason everyone lets the shelves go bare in January (or their cyclic low point financially) to declare minimum inventory which reduces taxes. Even lumberyards to that and it's why when disasters happen the spare pallets of building materials are shipped less than truck load to go for recovery. Nobody keeps massive inventory any more.

Much less the risk of sabotage or neglect. Insurance costs factor in.

What we have is a Just In Time system and Walmart is a perfect example. They do not get pallets of ammo to the store. Not hardly. If they sell X numbers of boxes of ammo per calendar unit, the continuous resupply returns X number of boxes back to the shelf.

At no time can the system suddenly increase production or ship more to meet the sudden demand of a panic buying situation. Look to natural disasters or weather - grocery stores run out of bottled water and toilet paper, hard goods ship in generators from out of state. They don't keep stuff in reserve. It's too expensive and there's no room to put it anyway.

So a political event then occurs and the shelves are cleared? Who does that? Those with no experience, training, or character - they are prey to panic and fear. Their guiding principal is "I won't get mine!" and reacting in selfishness they go out and clear the shelves.

Does the supply system come crashing down? No. People keep going to work, ammo is made, product is shipped, trucks run, deliveries are made. But at the panic driven consumer level, one too many discover they are a minute late dashing around selfishly looking to buy anything because the sky is going to fall.

I've seen young girls react more maturely at the loss of a prom dress eight hours before the dance.

Again, the system doesn't come crashing down. What does are the expectations of some to be able to walk into a major retailer and buy a box of ammo with their pop and chips. OMG! THE SHELVES ARE BARE!.

Just what kind of fears propel this? They are the subject of a lot of speculation not directly germane to this thread, but it's usually the uninformed and sometimes patently ignorant kind of stuff you hear around gun counters. Think about it. If we post up commentary from there to skewer for it's inaccuracy, why take for gospel the same source on the subject of current events?

Nope, the system isn't poised on a razor's edge, and production doesn't come crashing down. What happens is that a lot of the less well prepared or educated suddenly start vying for something they never previously considered important to themselves - no different than matrons prowling the aisles in the Mall hunting down Cabbage Patch dolls, or the Governator searching for an action toy. It's comedic.

On the bright side every panic educated another group of buyers previously insensitive to reality and we get another boost in the knowledge base of shooters. It's been going on 30 years now and things are improving - as are the laws, which reflect it.

Ignore the political theatre of candidates jockeying for votes, it's vaudeville for the national press and promises made are as flimsy as the whispers from prostitutes at your local hot spot. If you believe them you deserve to - but I suspect you will learn something from it and mature.
 
Well written, Tirod.
I agree 100% with what you wrote.
I ask myself, in times of shortages, when are those who are "prepared", prepared enough or do they continually "prepare" until the day they die? Does someone who has 5x the amount of ammo he can conceivably shoot in his lifetime ever say he has enough?

I see ammo as a commodity of sorts. The price will surely rise over the decades and in some instances could reap a windfall return but for some reason I don't see these folks as speculators as much as I see them as worried they may not be able to get more in the future. They buy because they can and don't care if they don't need it. They just want some more. That, I don't get. To me, it's no different than the Beanie Baby collectors, matchbox collectors, baseball card collectors, etc. They will never sell their collection because they feel satisfied just looking at it and watching it grow. When they die, their heirs will sell it for 10¢ on the dollar.

I may be called a 'hoarder' by others because I have enough ammo and components on hand to shoot until I die. I'll probably need some more .22LR at some point but if I never saw another box I could get by. Over the weekend I saw some .45ACP for $12.99 a box of 50 and 9mm for under $10 a box of 50 and put 10 of each into my shopping cart (online). When I went to checkout I asked myself "Why? I don't need this even at this price." I proceeded to empty my cart and move on.

When is enough, enough?
 
Hmmm, that is all fine and well. We can all shake hands and leave ammo/components on the shelves. But it will not change the basic economics of supply and demand and it is unlikely to change the behavior of the general populace. That being the case...

I don't feel the need to fill the garage or basement with enough to shoot until I start pushing up daisies. OTOH, we are talking about a commodity that is shelf stable for years/decades/forever, tends to go up in price over time, and periodically turns into unobtanium. Will I expire if I don't have access to this stuff? Of course not. OTOH, this is one of my main hobbies and I only have so many years left before I can't do some or all of it any more and I don't want to miss out. So it seems to me that the prudent person lays in a supply at least big enough to insulate them from the periodic supply shortages that seem to come in waves, ideally when supplies are ample and prices are reasonable. Is this hoarding? That is probably in the eye of the beholder.
 
No, the vendors I use and check and know of are not using scare tactics.

Yes, there will be a small run on ammo leading up to election.

No, thee will no be a crisis level shortage because the election will not go that direction.

Does someone who has 5x the amount of ammo he can conceivably shoot in his lifetime ever say he has enough?

I'd love to meet such a person. And have them be under the age of 80. Just to see if such a person actually exists and isn't a straw man.

And of course I would have to know...does this man have children, or grandchildren, or even great grand children, or other surviving family members, who will be using this hypothetical ammo?
 
2008 - I wasn't shooting much, so I pretty much slept through it.

2012 - Having returned to shooting sports, but slept through 2008, I got caught with low inventory.

Sandy Hook - I bought what I could, when I could, and shot less. Limped by.

I went for several years without firing a pistol at all - but shot a lot of varmint rifles and shotguns. I returned to pistols in 2010 or 2011, and quickly gained enthusiasm. When ammo finally became available at reasonable costs, I bought some extra. My wife took up shooting, as well, so when it became apparent what a tragic circus this election might become, we had a brief discussion about the forseeable future, our financial situation, and the chances that Gavin Newsome will succeed in passing his proposed initiatives - which led us to buy deep as quickly as possible. We are now prepared to weather a couple of years of political insanity. The wife keeps asking if it's enough....and I have more on hand than I did when I was shooting competitively in the '80s. Then again, ammo was cheap and widely available then, so I only bought a case to save a penny a round.

When we're dead and gone, the guns go to family members. If I've bought too much ammo between now and then, I'm fine with that - and the heirs will be, too. If Newsome succeeds in making ammo hard to get and very expensive, I'll wish I'd bought more. If not, I won't regret stocking up.
 
I got caught with my pants down back in 2008, when the first panic hit. I didn't see it coming and didn't prepare, but I was still able to shoot, although at a highly reduced round count.

No one saw Sandy Hook coming and I got screwed again.....that prompted me to start stocking up big-time once the stuff became available again, which was earlier this year.

The GOP is dreaming if they think Trump stands any chance at all.

At my current round count, which is 2500 5.56/year, 2500 9mm/year and 2500 40 S&W/year, I now have a 2 year supply of components.....that I'm comfortable with and I'm not buying anymore stuff right now.

When it hits the fan in November, I'll be able to relax knowing that I can still shoot for the next 2 years.
 
If Gavin Newsome gets his ammo initiative passed in November, we won't be able to mail-order ammo again. We'll also have to have a background check to buy ammo in California. Those two things will greatly inflate ammo costs in CA, and I have no problem imagining he can get the liberal cities to vote his way. The courts will possibly overturn the law, but when? My plan is to have ten years supply on hand by November, so that if the worst reasonably possible outcome happens, we'll be OK until I can retire and move.
 
The judges are older and a conservative bunch no matter how they lean. They just don't go to work every day looking for a ruling to rehash.
You don't pay much attention to the dissenting opinions of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stevens or Sotomayor, do you?
 
t would be very, very possible to see Heller overturned then.

I find that actually very improbable. Stare decisis and all that. A more probable thing is that you would see two types of cases go against RKBA interests. First those concerning when the second amendment is implicated and second those concerning the standard of scrutiny to be used when it is implicated. The effect of that would be to allow more gun control laws to stand. An outright overturning of a case only recently decided seems rather improbable.

The courts tend to cut back on rulings and limit their effect much more often than they over turn them outright.
 
Between the demand of the military, LEO's and civilians, the current supply capacity can barely keep up as it is. AFAIK, ammo production capacity has not dramatically increased over the last few years.

Add to that the dramatic increase in the number of shooters over the last few years, its pretty strained.

Another long term spike in demand and we're hosed!
 
You don't pay much attention to the dissenting opinions of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stevens or Sotomayor, do you?

On decisions already handed down, they are just opinions, as you stated.

On future legislation, those opinions now carry weight. However, I'll still contend that decisions already made and put to law don't get overturned "just because". We have SC decisions already made that carry the weight of the law of the land. To fear all of these decisions being overturned just because we have a new judge is not realistic. Our biggest challenge is the individual states passing laws that push the envelope but don't cross the line all the way. I feel that the gun community is growing and the newest members like their newly discovered rights. I don't see many states/people just rolling over. Look at CO for recent whiplash.
 
Last edited:
Look at CO for recent whiplash.

What whiplash would that be?

Are not the ridiculous gun control laws passed post sandy hook still in place?

And is the governor that signed them not still in place, after being re-elected following the signing of those laws?
 
I guess the recalls of 2 elected officials doesn't count

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_recall_election,_2013

Small steps to take back lost ground. Reading some posts makes it seem like all we are doing is going backwards yet IL now issues CC permits and many other states have also allowed CC. We lose some ground in some states and gain some in others. Heller and McDonald have shown us we do have the right to protect ourselves but now the states are trying to tell us which guns we can use, how much ammo we can load and various other methods of control. We take 2 steps forward and one step backwards. We are gaining millions of new shooters every year.

Those who speak of doom are not realistic and those who feel we have nothing to fear are just as unrealistic. We need associations like the NRA and the state groups to watch our backs to keep them above board. They need our money to keep it up. I do my part and I hope everyone here considers contributing to A cause to protect our rights.
 
I guess the recalls of 2 elected officials doesn't count

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_recall_election,_2013

Small steps to take back lost ground. Reading some posts makes it seem like all we are doing is going backwards yet IL now issues CC permits and many other states have also allowed CC. We lose some ground in some states and gain some in others. Heller and McDonald have shown us we do have the right to protect ourselves but now the states are trying to tell us which guns we can use, how much ammo we can load and various other methods of control. We take 2 steps forward and one step backwards. We are gaining millions of new shooters every year.

Those who speak of doom are not realistic and those who feel we have nothing to fear are just as unrealistic. We need associations like the NRA and the state groups to watch our backs to keep them above board. They need our money to keep it up. I do my part and I hope everyone here considers contributing to A cause to protect our rights.

I don't think that really counts, no. They passed the laws they wanted to pass and virtually every politician kept their job, including the governor.

"They" will take that every single time, because it is a huge win for the antis.

The only repercussions that count for anything are the ones that see the laws repealed.

The bold is my point...some states are losing ground and Colorado is one of them. Most states are going forward, but the ones like CA, NY, CO, and some others, are not. CO in particular worries me as it seems like a litmus test.
 
....I don't think that really counts, no.

Well, we can agree to disagree.

I feel it sent a message to other politicians across the country that we won't just allow them to step on us without a fight. After the recalls, it got awfully quiet on the front lines. Yes, CO lost some ground. Every battle won't be won but I feel that it starts in one state and gives those that wish to push an anti-gun agenda some pause. CA is a hunting ground right now. Let's see how it runs out because I feel an anti-gun focus by any politician may lead to political suicide. CA has a lot of pro-gunners who need to take a stand and push back. Hopefully they can get it done with the help of the NRA and the local pro-gun groups. We'll never have all 50 states but neither will they. We have to make sure we end up with more on our side than they do on theirs. I really feel the newest gun owners, which (thanks to Obama) are in the millions, will begin to realize we have a battle and that they have to stand up and fight with us. They all love their new hobby and do not want to give it up.
 
Well, we can agree to disagree.

I feel it sent a message to other politicians across the country that we won't just allow them to step on us without a fight. After the recalls, it got awfully quiet on the front lines. Yes, CO lost some ground. Every battle won't be won but I feel that it starts in one state and gives those that wish to push an anti-gun agenda some pause. CA is a hunting ground right now. Let's see how it runs out because I feel an anti-gun focus by any politician may lead to political suicide. CA has a lot of pro-gunners who need to take a stand and push back. Hopefully they can get it done with the help of the NRA and the local pro-gun groups. We'll never have all 50 states but neither will they. We have to make sure we end up with more on our side than they do on theirs. I really feel the newest gun owners, which (thanks to Obama) are in the millions, will begin to realize we have a battle and that they have to stand up and fight with us. They all love their new hobby and do not want to give it up.

I don't think it gives them any pause at all. They got their bills passed and those bills, now law, haven't changed. They won. Plain and simple.
 
I guess the recalls of 2 elected officials doesn't count
The prohibitionists are willing to put peaceable citizens in jail and threaten violence against millions in order to get their way, so they certainly aren't bothered too much by a couple of politicians losing their jobs if it wins them a skirmish in their Holy War. Heck, a lot of them praise Clinton for losing the House and Senate over the original AWB, as an example of idealogical purity and noble sacrifice. The leaders of the gun control movement are not pragmatists.

Bloomberg's Colorado magazine ban may end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the prohibitionists just as the 1994 AWB was (it certainly was for Hickenlooper, costing him any Presidential hopes he might have had), but it is still important for us to repeal it.
 
On decisions already handed down, they are just opinions, as you stated.

On future legislation, those opinions now carry weight. However, I'll still contend that decisions already made and put to law don't get overturned "just because". We have SC decisions already made that carry the weight of the law of the land. To fear all of these decisions being overturned just because we have a new judge is not realistic. Our biggest challenge is the individual states passing laws that push the envelope but don't cross the line all the way. I feel that the gun community is growing and the newest members like their newly discovered rights. I don't see many states/people just rolling over. Look at CO for recent whiplash.
I find that actually very improbable. Stare decisis and all that.

The example justices are only mentioned as an example of the extremist ideologues that are appointed by leftists. These people's statements and behaviors indicate they could care less about stare decisis or any other precedent. I take them at their word.

When I read these justices statements and opinions, I often ask myself if they ever read the Constitution, Declaration or the Northwest Ordinance. Too much of their reasoning is contorted and completely out of bounds if the standard of the Constitution as written applies. Wasn't it RB-G that stated we need to look at the laws of Europe to interpret our constitution?
Oh, yes. Here we go: http://opiniojuris.org/2010/08/02/j...rnational-law-in-constitutional-adjudication/

Remember this? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/kagans-threat-to-gun-owners/
Ms. Kagan’s defenders acknowledge her liberal political views but claim that as a judge, the former Harvard Law School dean will somehow manage to separate her judgments from her political opinions. The hitch is that her legal views correspond with her political views.

When extreme leftists such as Kagan, Sotomayor and RGB are in the majority, their ideology will overrule the constitution. They have publicly said as much.

You appear to place much faith in leftists following tradition of the court, stare decisis and all. I pray that you are correct. However, the actions and words of these people do not provide evidence for such confidence.

JMH layman's opinion, of course.
 
I just posted up this pic in the reloading section, I thought I might as well post it in this thread too...
attachment.php


Today when I went to Cabelas.
 
You appear to place much faith in leftists following tradition of the court, stare decisis and all. I pray that you are correct. However, the actions and words of these people do not provide evidence for such confidence.

No I have just spent enough time reading and studying SCOTUS decisions to know that even when you want a different outcome outright reversal is rarely the vehicle used to get there. Read what I said they would do. You can render a decision largely ineffective without overturning it per se.
 
I just posted up this pic in the reloading section, I thought I might as well post it in this thread too...
attachment.php


Today when I went to Cabelas.
That would send our fire marshal into epileptic convulsions!
The quantities allowed for display by the code are quite modest. Storage magazine design is quite strict, too.
 
Quote:
You appear to place much faith in leftists following tradition of the court, stare decisis and all. I pray that you are correct. However, the actions and words of these people do not provide evidence for such confidence.
No I have just spent enough time reading and studying SCOTUS decisions to know that even when you want a different outcome outright reversal is rarely the vehicle used to get there. Read what I said they would do. You can render a decision largely ineffective without overturning it per se.
From a historical context, I believe you are correct. My difference in opinion is not based on historical precedent but comes from observing present day actions by these people. They do not care about precedent. They want what they want and they will not observe the rule of law if that is what it takes to get what they want.

We will not win this fight by fighting by the rules, because the leftists will not fight by the rules. They play by their own rules which is: "He who wins, rules."
 
Last edited:
From a historical context, I believe you are correct. My difference in opinion is not based on historical precedent but comes from observing present day actions by these people. They do not care about precedent.

Ok, reference an instance of this occurring with the current court? Where have they outright overturned a SCOTUS case decided only a few years earlier?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top