What Do You Think Of This?

[ThomasT]

"If you were smart enough to buy 50 guns but weren't smart enough to have a big stack of ammo set back thats on you. Maybe you should have bought 25 guns and 25,000 rounds of ammo instead."

That's absurd. It's like saying if someone bought a car he should have been "smart enough" to stash away a few hundred gallons of gas in preparation of a future fuel shortage.

No its not absurd. And just so you know I practice what I preach. I have sold off around 20 guns in the last couple of years. But I still have north of 60 firearms on hand. Here are some of the totals of what I have on hand.

30,000 22 rounds
5,500 22 mag rounds
4,500 223 rounds and enough stuff to load another 5,000
3,700 7.62x39
2,500 9mm and enough components to load at least 5,000 more not counting lead bullet loading
over 2,000 38 special
1,500+ 357
1,000+ 30-30
250 243
200 30-06
1,200 32 long/32 mag
1,400 pounds of lead
25,000 assorted primers
48 pounds smokeless powder
38 pounds of black powder
26 bullet molds
8,000 #11 caps for black powder guns
thousands of various brass cases

Those rounds listed are what I have loaded now. I have enough bullets cast up on hand to load thousands of more rounds. Its nice. Panics have no affect on me.

And I have this because of the lesson I learned in 1996 when the rumor went around that primers would be made with a 6 month shelf life. All the old primers were bought up. The price more than doubled overnight. I said never again would I be caught short of ammo and supplies. And so far I never have.

[ballardw]

I need more lead, only have about 300 pounds.

I bought a brick or so of .22 every payday that it was on the shelves for quite some time to make sure I was unlikely to run out when another panic hit.

Wanted more 22WMR but not always on the shelves in the flavor I wanted. So that will go through bolt action and single action revolver instead of the auto.

[dgludwig]

I guess there must be a fine line between hoarding and "stocking up" ammunition and reloading components for the next ten years that is too blurry for me to discern. People get criticized for being too stupid for not having been prepared for the latest election year "crisis" and are called hoarders when they do. Best policy imo is for everyone to mind their own business and let others do what they do without fear of reprisal or second guessing-and for me, that includes buyers and sellers alike.

[Carmady]

"So, basically, I don't give a flying fig about new gun owners being able to get ammo. I should go to the top of the heap, and those store owners have the obligation to pander to ME!

Gotcha."

No, I don't think you do. That's not what I said at all.

I'll make two points.

#1.
I said the store owners can run their businesses as they see fit. And I'll spend my money how and where I see fit. That means if I don't want to buy another gun in order to buy some ammo, I won't. No big deal. The LGS isn't obligated to do what I want, and I didn't imply that they are. OTOH, I'm under no obligation to buy a gun from them so I can buy ammo. I can buy ammo somewhere else, or not. I have to obey the store rules when I'm in the store, but I'm not chained to their wall. I can walk out with no ammo, and I can go visit Rock City. I have options.

#2.
Re: "...don't give a flying fig about new gun owners being able to get ammo."
From the OP: “No ammo sales unless you purchase a firearm. Period.”
Where does the store's sign/s say anything about "new?"
I'll tell you - nowhere.
And what does "new" mean?
New gun?
or "New" gun owner?
Doesn't matter, because "new" isn't on the sign.
From the sign (again): "...unless you purchase a firearm." The store doesn't specify "new" firearm, it could be a used firearm. And the sign doesn't even specify that the ammo has to fit the firearm you buy.
You wanna buy ammo? You have to buy a firearm. "Period." That's what it says.

And in case anyone is thinking "new gun owners" means first time gun owners, how is someone supposed to prove he has never owned a gun?
Still doesn't matter, because "new" isn't on the sign.

[dgludwig]

I said the store owners can run their businesses as they see fit. And I'll spend my money how and where I see fit.

I can't argue with that; makes plenty of sense to me.

[JohnKSa]

If you were smart enough to buy 50 guns but weren't smart enough to have a big stack of ammo set back thats on you. Maybe you should have bought 25 guns and 25,000 rounds of ammo instead.

YES!! Or maybe even 5 guns and 90,000 rounds of ammo.

If the goal is to shoot, then having a lot of ammo is way more important than having a lot of guns.

I guess there must be a fine line between hoarding and "stocking up" ammunition and reloading components for the next ten years that is too blurry for me to discern.

It's actually a very significant difference.

Hoarders make shortages worse by buying during shortages with no intent to use and/or buying quantities beyond what they can actually use. They take ammo off the shelves that others could use and they do so even though they don't need it themselves.

People who stock up ammo during times of plenty actually ALLEVIATE shortages because they don't have to buy when ammo is hard to find. They can even act as small-scale suppliers to friends and family during shortages, again, making the impact of shortages somewhat less.

#2.
Re: "...don't give a flying fig about new gun owners being able to get ammo."
From the OP: “No ammo sales unless you purchase a firearm. Period.”
Where does the store's sign/s say anything about "new?"
I'll tell you - nowhere.
And what does "new" mean?
New gun?
or "New" gun owner?
Doesn't matter, because "new" isn't on the sign.
From the sign (again): "...unless you purchase a firearm." The store doesn't specify "new" firearm, it could be a used firearm. And the sign doesn't even specify that the ammo has to fit the firearm you buy.
You wanna buy ammo? You have to buy a firearm. "Period." That's what it says.

And in case anyone is thinking "new gun owners" means first time gun owners, how is someone supposed to prove he has never owned a gun?
Still doesn't matter, because "new" isn't on the sign.

Nobody said that ONLY new owners would benefit.

But new owners are certainly one group who would be able to buy ammo at the shop if they buy a gun. It's also easy to understand why they are the group of gun buyers who are most likely to not already have ammo on hand and who would therefore be most benefited by the ability to buy some with their purchase.

In other words, it's quite obvious how the policy will benefit new owners, and even benefit them more than it does other buyers even if it's not designed so that it's exclusive to new buyers.

[Pond, James Pond]

One of the benefits of owning your own business is you can set the terms on which you wish to carry out that business.

The likelihood is that this controversial move by this shop is a reasoned one.

As has been pointed out, we don't know the logic behind that reasoning.

Perhaps there wasn't any, but given the current social climate I can well imagine that shops need to make tough decisions on how to stay afloat, and meet the needs of as many people as possible.

It might also be that this shop is unable to shift the guns in stock because potential buyers come in, ask about a gun, ask about ammo, find the latter is absent and move on.

This means the shop has stock sitting on the shelves and it's not shifting.

That's a lethal blow to a business in the long run. Naturally, they have to come up with a way of moving those goods without making a loss. Maybe this was their solution.

[Carmady]

"I can't argue with that; makes plenty of sense to me."

Thank you.

[Carmady]

"In other words, it's quite obvious how the policy will benefit new owners, and even benefit them more than it does other buyers even if it's not designed so that it's exclusive to new buyers."

The policy is designed to benefit the store's revenue. It's just that simple.

All ammo sales will be accompanied by a firearm sale. "Period."

The store is low on ammo, and selling the extra firearms will bring in more money.

They are there to make money and stay in business.

[SIGSHR]

At another gun shop/range they posted a sign "Members can only buy ammunition at non-members prices."

[Aguila Blanca]

I wonder how big a part semantics plays in this. Suppose instead of saying “No ammo sales unless you purchase a firearm," the sign said something like "We only have enough stock to sell ammunition to customers who buy a firearm. Thank you for your understanding."

Would that language have raised the same objections? Now it's not saying you are "required" to buy a gun.

[44 AMP]

what is the cheapest gun they sell??? Lets say its $200, just to have a number...

Now, suppose the sign said "Minimum $200 purchase required before ammunition may be purchased"

would that make you feel differently??
Not requiring you to buy a gun, but requiring you to spend the amount of money needed to buy a gun on something from their shop before they will sell you (probably a very limited quantity) of ammunition.

would that make a difference to you??

[JohnKSa]

The policy is designed to benefit the store's revenue. It's just that simple.

That's true of most store policies. I suspect that once in awhile an owner/manager will make a policy purely because they believe it's the right thing to do, but even then it could be argued that a store that does "the right thing" will benefit its revenues in the long run. As long as enough people agree that it is the right thing, that is!

Anyway, regardless of the motive of the owner/manager in making this particular policy, it's easy to see that it does benefit new owners. That's true even if that's not the motive behind enacting the policy.

The nature of businesses tends to be that both the business and the customer benefits as a result of their interactions. Even though they both are primarily interested in meeting their own needs, they also benefit each other.

[Pathfinder45]

What good is a gun without ammo? The decision was made in order to be able to provide ammo for the buyer of a gun. It's as simple as that. Nothing evil about it.

[Mike Irwin]

" No, I don't think you do. That's not what I said at all."

No, you didn't come out and say it.

But it's clear that that is the prevailing attitude that is at the basis of your arguments.

[Mike Irwin]

" The policy is designed to benefit the store's revenue. It's just that simple."

Holy crap! Those heartless capitalistic bastards! Imagine that, a BUSINESS being worried about revenue. I've never heard of anything so self-serving and selfish in all of my life...

Jesus, really?

[Carmady]

"No, you didn't come out and say it.

But it's clear that that is the prevailing attitude that is at the basis of your arguments."

My arguments? You're the one who keeps misinterpreting what I wrote, and then wants to give me a hard time about it. You make a bunch of unfounded assumptions, and then follow up with finger-pointing nonsense.

[Carmady]

"Holy crap! Those heartless capitalistic bastards! Imagine that, a BUSINESS being worried about revenue. I've never heard of anything so self-serving and selfish in all of my life...

Jesus, really?"

See post #67. After you grasp that, go back to the beginning of the thread and re-read the posts before mine.

My point was the purpose of the store's new policy was to increase income, and was NOT PUT IN PLACE SO FIRST TIME FIREARM OWNERS WOULD HAVE AMMO.

Yes, I said I thought it was lame of the store to do that, and I stand by that opinion, and I also stand by the store owner's right to run his business as he wants.

[44 AMP]

Ok, EVERYBODY take a breath and cool your jets...

" The policy is designed to benefit the store's revenue. It's just that simple."

That's your assumption, and it may just be that simple, but WE DON'T KNOW!

As I pointed out in post #10, no one has talked to anyone at the store to find out anything.

The Original poster has not been back to this thread. He didn't identify what store it was. ALL he gave us was "I saw this sign at my LGS" and NOTHING else.

Everything we have been discussing for the last 3 pages is nothing but assumption and speculation. So, since things are going downhill and in circles I'm calling this one done.

Closed.