# Hoarding Mentality



## late.runner (Dec 17, 2006)

Hi,

I recently posted a request because I'm building my first benchrest/prairie dog rifle and am looking for enough primers to get me through the summer (500-1000). This afternoon I came across a store with 2000 small rifle primers. I took what I think I'll need through at least June and left them with 1500 on the shelf.

I appreciate those good folks who replied to my first post and that they are genuinely concerned that a fellow shooter has primers. Many other folks implied we should join the hoarding. But what these folks generally informed me of has stuck in my crop for a couple days now; it disturbs me that the "quality of life" for all of us in the shooting community is a little stressed right now solely because we're unnecessarily bringing it on ourselves. I look at us acting defensive with this hoarding mentality and perpetuating totally unrealistic fears in emails and forums. Good friends who are otherwise level-headed are asking me what I think about his grabbing up the latest 20 cal whatever that will shoot through a vest. Tell me honestly what there is to be worried about that an 870 next to the bedpost won't adequately address, and apply more faculties than the stem of your brain when you form your reply. ( That's not a dig; I'm asking people to think and act more reasonably.) This fight- or-flight mode isn't doing any of us much good right now, save the manufacturers and suppliers.

I think several of those who replied and others who currently hold the hoarding mindset are missing a critical point that goes beyond supplies and reflects a weakness in the entire community and threatens us more than a few extreme liberals might. Why would I want to take more primers (or anything else) than I will use and prevent others from having what they need especially in these times when there is naturally a heightened sense of concern? Do we want so much to have more problems that we go out and create them for ourselves? The extra primers (or whatever) that I take and would not use would be of no use to anyone, and their absence on the market would perpetuate the false sense that there are not enough for all of us to have plenty of supplies.

Occasionally I hear concern raised about the future of our shooting sports and that there are fewer and fewer young people joining the sports at the same time there are declining opportunities to shoot and hunt. Under these relatively slow pressures, doesn't it make a little more sense to keep as many people who are already shooters involved in shooting rather than adding one more hassle that would discourage them from staying in or expanding their enjoyment in the sport? Do we really want our thoughts and actions to say, "Me first, Comrade?" To me that's not a community. I think we all know golfers and bowlers who are former hunters because for them hunting changed from a means of relaxing to a competition for places to hunt. You can draw the parallels with shortages of our other resources including shooting supplies. I have a feeling that a disgruntled former hunter/shooter is likely to be a lot less supportive of our political causes than Joe Schmoe liberal who really doesn't care either way whether people hunt just so long as he can marry his best friend and drive a battery powered roller skate.

A lot of what I hear seems to come from a concern that the current administration is planning to go after our ability to own or use our guns. It's the same old hype that infests our thinking every time there is a new democratic administration. We hear a rumor hear a statement from a strong-minded extreme liberal and we react like something has already happened to our favorite past-time. I vote like most of the rest of the people on here, but do have to ask, "Where is people's rationality?" When we stop and think it, do we really believe this government will attempt to prevent us from shooting? Aren't there still too many voters who shoot? And, don't most democrats either care less that others shoot or are shooters themselves? I'm thinking that if there were that much hatred for hunting or for guns, I'd be hearing these comments on the street as often as I hear about abortion or tax increases, etc. I can't remember the last time I've heard anyone say they are adamant about taking away all guns and actually intending to back that idea. (Sure, it's said but not as a prevalent topic of conversation and not by anyone who holds it as any kind of priority.) The shooting community is strong and active politically, I don't see why we need to defeat ourselves by turning our own people off for no immediate reason. (Yes, fear is a tool to keep us attentive, active, and sending money, but there is such thing as too much fear.)

At times like this we begin to see who is cool and level-headed and who is tripping over remote fears that they allow others to perpetuate in their minds. Sure, keep active in the political scene, but maybe ease up a little on the panic and take a break from all the drama. That money, time, and energy would be better invested in introducing someone new to your favorite sport.

Laterunner


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

:thumb:

Great post laterunner.

Thanks for sharing those rational, level headed thoughts.

The amount of hysteria in this forum has been beyond ridiculous, and is being perpetuated by a few over and over and over, and it is _*not*_ limited just to the ammo hoarding topic, but rather to many other political topics also.

Take care.

Hopefully we'll see more of your sensible observations in the weeks to come.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

I too, applaud not only your sensability, but generosity as well. But I will say this. Go ahead and buy your brick of primers. A brick at a time is not only normal, but expected, where I like to buy my supplies. It's not excessive by any means. Now, if you buy a case, when that's all that's on the shelf, that might be a little piggy. But good on you for trying to make a bit of sense out of all the ammo mayhem that's going on.

Burl


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> cool and level-headed


That could be, or it could be naive. Only time will tell. I don't think people should hoard, but I have always had 1000 each of small rifle, large rifle, large pistol, and small pistol and know that will take care of eight or nine months. To one person that is hording, to another it's only part of a year supply. I just want to know I have what I want when fall rolls around. I think the manufacturers will catch up, but what I think people need to do is what you just did. I would have bought 1000, but I burn them up fast. A prairie dog shoot for some people will burn them all up in three days.



> it disturbs me that the "quality of life" for all of us in the shooting community is a little stressed right now solely because we're unnecessarily bringing it on ourselves.


I think the military demand brought it on, and it will turn around, but if you want to blame your fellow hunters that's your prerogative. However my stand is like everything else in life, if your not on the ball you may not hunt. I think that's only a 10% chance, but I don't waste my time at the casino either.



> A lot of what I hear seems to come from a concern that the current administration is planning to go after our ability to own or use our guns. It's the same old hype that infests our thinking every time there is a new democratic administration.


It sounds more like a political speech to me than concern for our sport. If you look at the history of some of these people you will understand that it's not paranoid to think they want to diminish the second amendment it's naive to think they will not.

Have you looked at the bills that are currently active. Some are so nuts they have no chance. A friend of mine in active in politics thinks the assault rifle ban will be brought up sometime within four months after the 2010 election. The additions Pelosi wanted to add have been looked at by some already. It's more restrictive, but could change a lot either way. All I can say is be guardedly optimistic, but don't drop your guard.

Do any of you remember the idea about ten years ago that they should make primers with a one year shelf life? How many of you were paying attention? I'm not worried about the next two years, I am worried about the next 20 years. The production will catch up with the demand and if you shoot a lot you should have at least 5000 on hand. When production catches up that's not hording, it's simply like taking your vitamin in the morning.

Many of us have primers five years old. We were simply prepared not hoarders. It's not that I wish bad for you this fall, it's that I wish well for you for many years from now. Your not learning your simply arguing. But go ahead, your entitled to your opinion. However, please don't whine later.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Before you think your the one being level headed did you watch 20/20 tonight? We gun owners were attacked again. Did you know that if you have a home invasion and own a gun your more than ten times likely to be hurt yourself? Wow, they hid guns in the toy boxes of six year old kids, and when they found them they played with them. So maybe adults shouldn't be dumb enough to hide them in the toy box.

Then they interviewed kids who had accidentally killed a friend. What do you think they asked? If you could talk to the president of the United States what would you ask him to do? If you could talk to president Obama what would you ask him to do? I would like the president of the United States to not have any guns so people can't hurt each other. I have never seen such unscientific news since they hid a spark plug in the gas tank of a Chevy truck and started the fire themselves after it had been broadsided to show how dangerous pickups are.

Ya, no reason to have a years supply of ammo. Those guys with 2000 primers are cheating those who don't believe.

Oh, and the worst was the gun hole loophole. We have to stop private guns sales. Just terrible there was a man at the gun show and you know what he was doing? He was pushing a baby carriage. Oh, my!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

R y a n said:


> :thumb:
> 
> Great post laterunner.
> 
> ...


Sensible??? It was just a couple weeks ago you were advocating ammo control. Sensible? Which side are you on Ryan? That stuff your learning in those intellectual latte shops shouldn't be forced on a free America.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

This should be in the political forum so we can really dive into all the juicy details that fuel the views of all those here who, in my opinion, are being confused for "conspiracy theorists".

Late.runner, you sound like a smart guy, and as such should have no problem researching more than enough info to clearly show why so many are concerned for the future of our sport. You can start with both Obama's and Holder's publicly stated support for the District of Columbia gun laws prior to the Heller decision (as compared to the slightly different version_ after _the decision), and then do some quick research into how much power the Atty Gen has in implementing and, in some respects, re-defining existing gun laws before any action by Congress on the issue was even started.



> We hear a rumor hear a statement from a strong-minded extreme liberal and we react like something has already happened to our favorite past-time.


It's not rumor if there's public record of it, and both have more than enough on the record to squelch any belief they are sportsman friendly......if you are willing to listen :wink:

From being against concealed carry to supporting an all out ban on semi-auto firearms and sales of "assault weapon" ammo, there are plenty of reasons for us to be legitimately concerned with our current leadership. Having those two in charge is akin to my WY rancher friends allowing coyotes to guard their flocks of sheep. Sure , they might not eat _TOO _much (how much is too much?), but it would still be wise to keep an eye on 'em... don't you think? :wink:

The web is full of documentation of how England and Australia used public indifference to the issue of firearm rights vs public safety to completely change gun ownership forever in those countries, and now the citizens of those countries are dealing with a rise in crime that I believe is beyond our comprehension here, and have realized their ability to fight to regain their lost rights has all but completely been erased. There are numerous people across the pond warning us of what can happen, but for some reason we don't hear them on the news. :roll:

Have you studied any of Mr Obama's views of UN treaties relative to US law and the Constitution? Many "experts" believe there are already enough UN treaties signed by us that would effectively allow for dramatic changes of private gun ownership laws in this country if the current US leadership adopted a slightly different interpretation of those signed treaties. It would take some time and space to get into that, but we can if there is interest.

Or you can just simply ask yourself why Hillary Clinton was able to portray herself as being "gun-friendly" when compared to Mr Obama in the primaries. If that doesn't at least make you want to look into the subject a little more, then I doubt a deep conversation on the subject would have much affect. The belief that so many people own guns that the govt can't possibly take them away is a popular opinion. There are millions overseas who_ used_ to believe the same thing. 

And if you think the fact that we have it in our Constitution means that what happened in England and Australia isn't relative, just remember that only 5 out of the 9 people who will decide that sort of thing believe the 2nd amendment applies to us as individuals, and those 5 people are subject to change at any time. :wink:



> grabbing up the latest 20 cal whatever that will shoot through a vest.


Be careful using a bullet's ability to penetrate a vest for invalidating it's legal use as I believe any rilfe bullet used effectively on whitetail deer will go through _BOTH_ sides of a vest.



> Tell me honestly what there is to be worried about that an 870 next to the bedpost won't adequately address,


You've described my welcoming committee in perfect detail. I simply call it my butler, as he is the one who would greet anyone who came through my door uninvited. But if I lived in TX and those drug dealers that are in the news everyday could possibly end up in my back yard, my 870 wouldn't be much help. But as long as I had my phone I'm sure the police would get there in time...right? 



> This fight- or-flight mode isn't doing any of us much good right now,


You'll find that most posters who have that mindset end up gone from here pretty quickly.

Hope I didn't come off too strong, late.runner, as it certainly wasn't my intent. Although I am free with my opinions, there are few issues that I'm as willing to "dig my heels in" for as the issue of public indifference to the 2nd amendment...especially from fellow gun owners. You seem like someone who could add to the group here...with a little coaching  , so I'd love to discuss this further.

And if I could get off my :soapbox: for a bit, as mentioned by Plainsman, "hoarding" can have as many meanings as "sex" does to Bill Clinton. I have not spent one cent as a result of the drastically increased cost of ammo. I have always prescribed to buying in quantities _when they were on sale_, so I still have primers I paid $14 per thousand for and several thousand bullets I paid less than half of what they sell for now....in some cases less than a third. You can blame me for falsely increasing demand if you want, but if everyone bought like I do how many primers would be being purchased right now? EXACTLY! We'd all be patiently waiting for the price to come down to buy again. And since I have not bought anything since this shortage began I don't know what else I can do to _help_ during this time of need.

Join the NRA, vote against anyone who desires to pass any law that will make it less desireable to engage in the shooting sports (cost of ammo, places to shoot, legal risk of having a gun in the house, etc) and we will be more likely to get and keep youngsters involved in our sport. And with the number of children being raised in the big cities without guns in the house, that has never been more important than it is now!


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Good posts from both sides, but laterunner, you are confusing me a bit when you say


> there are fewer and fewer young people joining the sports


and also this


> I think we all know golfers and bowlers who are former hunters because for them hunting changed from a means of relaxing to a competition for places to hunt


but then come back with this



> do we really believe this government will attempt to prevent us from shooting? Aren't there still too many voters who shoot?


When you say our sport has fewer and fewer enthusiasts, then say we still have so many voters who shoot it makes me scratch my head. How long will this be the case if we keep on losing numbers?

If this keeps up, the balance will have to shift and we won't have enough voters who shoot to keep our rights as they should be.


----------



## Fallguy (Jan 23, 2004)

I know what you guys are saying. The GF and Fargo Scheels are all out of handgun ammo. Then I went to Bismarck's yesterday since I am here for Easter and THEY are out of hangun ammo too! Cripes!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I have always prescribed to buying in quantities when they were on sale, so I still have primers I paid $14 per thousand for and several thousand bullets I paid less than half of what they sell for now....in some cases less than a third.


Same here Csquare. I have some that I inherited from my father, and he passed away in 1989. We try to warn people to help them and they call us hoarders. :eyeroll:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

So define hoarding. I have on hand somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 rounds of loaded ammo in various calibers. Is this considered hoarding? I have had this level, give or take for about the past 10 years. I also try to keep a couple of thousand primers on hand, along with the other components needed to make ammo. I am low on primers though, I think I'm down to about 500, so in my opinion I'm critically low.

Some people consider the amount of my ammo excessive, I happen to know several people who have 3 to 4 time the amount that I have.

When it comes to ammo and components people have different comfort levels.

I also have several dozen arrows and another couple dozen raw shafts and the needed components to make them into arrows. Am I hoarding those too?

huntin1


----------



## iwantabuggy (Feb 15, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> So define hoarding. I have on hand somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 rounds of loaded ammo in various calibers. Is this considered hoarding? I have had this level, give or take for about the past 10 years. I also try to keep a couple of thousand primers on hand, along with the other components needed to make ammo. I am low on primers though, I think I'm down to about 500, so in my opinion I'm critically low.
> 
> Some people consider the amount of my ammo excessive, I happen to know several people who have 3 to 4 time the amount that I have.
> 
> ...


I don't consider that hoarding. I'd call it planning ahead.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

*"The amount of hysteria in this forum has been beyond ridiculous, and is being perpetuated by a few over and over and over, and it is not limited just to the ammo hoarding topic, but rather to many other political topics also".*

Good to see a "Moderator" taking a moderate stance and not stirring the pot. Gonna resort to the time honored Lib tactic towards those who don't share your opinion and start calling names next?.... :eyeroll:


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

Another GREAT post, Csquared, and you are spot on, NDTerminator!!


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

About all this stuff that is amazing to me is the shooters who only shoot 10 to 40 rds a year and they are buying 50,000 primers. Even if they shot 40 rds a year for 80 years that is still only 3,200 rds for a life time of shooting. With that being let us say you have a $800USD rifle with no ammo what do you have? I $800USD bat that is a horrible bat.

I normally shoot the national match course of fire two times a month from when it is nice enough to when it is too cold. It is usually a seven month shooting season that is 1,232 rds just for shooting paper. Now let us look at how much pistol ammo I use. I have no idea but it is a lot. I would easily guess it is anything from 2,000 to 3,000 a year.

My favorite is shooting PD and I have had many 800 to 1,000 rd days. I try to make it out at least eight times a year. Some years it is more than others. The year before last I fired a little over 12,000rds at PD. If I could afford to go and shoot PD every weekend I would. I have four rifles and a extra upper set up just for shooting PD. I have a fifth I take sometimes but it is my brothers rifle so I do not take it all that much.

Then counting all the rounds I fire long range and 22lr. Heck I am buying as much as I can afford to beat the cost increases. A supply of 50,000 primers does not last long at all.

Granted I could shoot less but you know the last time I checked this still is the United States of America and the state of North Dakota.

Chuck Norris keeps his friends close and his enemies closer. Close enough to drop them with one round house kick to the face.


----------



## HARRY2 (Jul 26, 2004)

It has come down to profiteers and panic i belive, there is a guy on Bisman that has sold more ammo this month than most of us would shoot in a lifetime.

He has now made his contact info private, i think this is because he was called out by another Bisman member. People will soon figure out that they are never going to use the 10k rounds they paid double or triple for and this will end. There is no ammo shortage, if a guy had the time he could go to Wal-Mart a few times a day and get whatever ammo he wanted. it is still coming in, it just sells faster.

I remember a panic frenzy just like this a few years ago but with a different product, i made thousands from a few hundred dollars. then all of a sudden one day it was over and i mean it was over. Like a light was turned off.


----------



## HARRY2 (Jul 26, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> 2000 primers are cheating those who don't believe.
> 
> Oh, and the worst was the gun hole loophole. We have to stop private guns sales. Just terrible there was a man at the gun show and you know what he was doing? He was pushing a baby carriage. Oh, my!!!!


 I always bring a baby carrige to the gun show, guns are heavy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I got a letter from Gun Owners of America and the way the bill is being written to stop the gun show loop hole covers all private sales. If you have a gun you will not be able to sell it. You will not be able to transfer it to anyone else. If they are correct in their assesment you would not be able to purchase a gun as a Christmas gift for your son or daughter. I'll see if I still have that email from them and post it.

Edit: I can't find the original Gun Owners alert, but here is a quote from it that I got in an email from a friend.



> "There is no rational reason to oppose closing the [gun show] loophole. The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington." --Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who, along with Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will introduce legislation to *eliminate the private transfers of firearms *and close the nation's "gun show loophole"


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Good friends who are otherwise level-headed are asking me what I think about his grabbing up the latest 20 cal whatever that will shoot through a vest.


I have to chuckle when I hear stuff like this. First... most of the larger caliber rifle rounds will penetrate a basic vest anyway. Second.... If your shooting at guys with vests chances are you are already outnumbered about 20/1 so your chances are not good anyway.

I have a reasonable supply of primers and brass right now, basically because I bought deals when I found them. I'm not about to go out and pay 3 times the value for stuff I don't need today and will likely be able to get within a year. I admit to buying a carton of mag small pistol primers to work up an "alternate load". I don't feel bad about it because Mag small pistol primers are everywhere so I'm not depriving anyone and It was something I planned on experimenting with sooner or later anyway.

There is no gun show loophole. A loophole is something that allows one to circumvent a requirement or law. Since there never has been a requirement or law to document private party transactions there is no loophole. It's just the Anti's catchword to make private transaction sound like something illegal. One might argue that current gun laws are loopholes to our free exercise of the second amendment.

Keep this in mind : when a legal activity is regulated to the point where the majority of the population can no longer participate in that activity those regulations are no longer reasonable. Any laws, taxes etc. that will prohibit the majority from readily exercising a freedom must therefore be illegal.


----------

