Originally Posted by Nomercy448

People win the Lottery every week. The American civilization has never collapsed into carte blanche, anarchy rule. Martial Law has never failed to contain localized anarchy.

What event has ever transpired where a box of ammo has truly been insufficient to defend ones’ person or home? Recommending owners keep 100-200 rounds on hand sure sounds good, but what’s the logical justification for that volume? As a student of defensive statistics, it’s somewhere between 10x to 100x more ammunition than is needed to satisfy the demonstrated needs of defensive shootings. As an instructor, I can easily defend that a person should be practicing that much over each month with their defensive pistol, and historically, all of the “shortages” of the last couple decades have lasted far more than a month. So it’s either far too much or far too little, but scantly defensible. Having a couple boxes in the dresser drawer is an old generation mentality which hasn’t held water under scrutiny against appropriate training standards.

There’s a “run” on ammo. Folks who know they need ammo and maybe even a lot of folks who regularly buy ammo in smaller quantities are recognizing the fact they won’t be able to find ammo to buy for a while, so they buy what they can when they can, and the trend is self fulfilling. We’re leading into a presidential election with a demonstrated and vocal anti-gun democrat leading the party, with a relatively pro-gun president weakened by a national - nay GLOBAL CRISIS - and an American economic regression unlike any we’ve seen in recent years. We’ve seen runs on ammunition and guns every election in which an anti-gun candidate has ran. We’ve seen runs in every economic recession. We’ve seen runs in every national crisis. Why would we think, even if they average firearm owner DID have 100-200 rounds of ammo on hand, why would we ever think 1) people wouldn’t buy more, and 2) more people - folks who didn’t own a gun previously - wouldn’t buy guns?