How much would you sell your 500 rnd 22lr boxes for?

[jcwit]

My idea is a different take. People have put forth a problem, I have put forth a solution, so now we'll see what happens.

$20 says we don't see any threads about how the heroic non gouger guys are standing in line to buy up the 22lr to sell at "normal" prices so that they can foil the nefarious plot of the evil gouger guys.

I'll place my bets with you Love Life, I do think what starmac does is commendable tho.

[btroj]

I sit here wondering....

If everybody hates the evil gouger guys who wait in line to buy up all the ammo (or is it ancient dragons?), then why don't the non-evil, non-gouger guys stand in line to buy up all the ammo and then resell it at the store price? Ya'll would be like Robin Hood. Ya'll would be heros defeating the nefarious evil gouger guys who prey on unsuspecting customers.

Oh, wait....that would require people to expend their personal time without adding to their own stock.....

Let's see......

I have a job

I have a life

I don't care too much about the 22 LR shortage, I have a bunch and don't shoot much, if any, these days

I don't personally know anyone who is having a shortage problem

I refuse to play games and battle morons who have nothing better to do than wait in line at shops to buy ammo

[starmac]

I wouldn't say commendable jcwit. I just happen to live within 5 miles from either place to get ammo or reloading supplies and have the time to go look during the day. Many folks live a hundred or more miles from the store, and since things last a matter of hours, it is very hard for them to pickup supplies on their trips to town, others just have work schedules that keep them from getting their in the few short hours that supplies are on the shelf. These are all regular working people and the prices are high enough as it is. When I ran a shop I worked on a lot of elderly peoples vehicles probono, even supplied the parts a lot of the time, what goes around usually comes around.

[Love Life]

I hook people up when I get the chance, but it is because I choose to. Altruism does not sit well with me.

[220]

In a way I find this thread a bit of a laugh. Shooters here in Aus are constantly complaining we are forced to pay to much for ammo and shooting gear.
22lr have gone up here in the past 12 months but our dollar has also dropped to its lowest level in over 3 years, dropping about 20% from it high. Going rate for cheap bulk ammo is around the $40 for 525 packs about $45 for a brick of cci std or similar.
While certain loads may be unavailable at times there hasn't been any shortage of 22lr, gunshops all have plenty on the shelves and I know one of the importers has 20mil or so in stock with more on the way. Maybe we should export some back to you.

[ravelode]

I had to pay a bill 6 months ago, so I parted with 4 400 round bricks of American Eagle for $35 each. Now I'm so short of .22 I am doing all of my plinking with my HP 995 and cast boolits. If this shortage keep up, I'll have to do my gopher shooting with that gun too.

[mold maker]

Unless they're driving a BRINKS truck, they aint carrying enough cash.

[rexherring]

Same price I paid for them, I hate scalping or as some scalpers would say "supply & demand". Just another excuse to rip someone off.

[Jammersix]

Selling something to a buyer at a price they agree to is, by definition, not ripping anyone off.

I'd make as much as I can make.

[starmac]

I have been extremely lucky. I have never been forced to buy ammo, I have gone without, but never forced to buy any ever. lol

[jcwit]

Selling something to a buyer at a price they agree to is, by definition, not ripping anyone off.

I'd make as much as I can make.

Sounds like an opinion to me.

Post a link for that definition!

[jcwit]

I have been extremely lucky. I have never been forced to buy ammo, I have gone without, but never forced to buy any ever. lol

Ever been the leader of a group "4- H, Scouts, etc." where the kids were in the Shooting sports?

Still not being "forced", but it sure helps if the youngsters have something other than a Daisy.

[jonp]

Sounds like an opinion to me.

Post a link for that definition!

That is called a willing transaction. Unless you are forced at gunpoint or threat of jail you are free to walk away. If you voluntarily pay a person for an item that he/she is selling then walk away complaining about being ripped off well, then, you are a dumb***.

[Black Powder Bill]

That is called a willing transaction. Unless you are forced at gunpoint or threat of jail you are free to walk away. If you voluntarily pay a person for an item that he/she is selling then walk away complaining about being ripped off well, then, you are a dumb***.

A person has wants and needs. The ammo shortage has created a very large void or "want" amongst the shooters.

I'm still seeing cartridges advertised for sale from the 60-70's & 80's at prices 10x's what they were selling for 10 years ago. I have flyers for new shotgun slugs and shot packed crazy loads no one would use unless forced to do so.

All magazines , publications are filled with play ammo and black ops sales pitches.

I just purchased a CZ American in 223. Didn't need it` I WANTED IT. Like with every toy I purchased I have no need for them. When I sell something I don't want it any longer. If a person choose to purchase it they do so at their own discursion. Very seldom do I hear I need this it always I WANTED this for a long time.

I have one customer, a Vet with a Phd who calls his purchases, "retail therapy" with out the couch.

[Black Powder Bill]

Sounds like an opinion to me.

Post a link for that definition!

The Myth of "Price-Gouging"
By Alex Epstein (Tampa Tribune, December 20, 2005; Calgary Herald, April 28, 2006)

The recent announcement of record profits by ExxonMobil and Chevron has revived widespread claims that these profits were extracted by "price gouging." Thus, the stage is set for Washington to pass a federal law banning "price gouging." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, for his part, has promised that "if the facts warrant it, I will support a federal anti-price gouging law."

But there are no facts that could warrant such a law, because there is no such thing as "price gouging" by private businesses.

The term "price gouging" implies that gas stations have an ability to forcibly inflict harm on us--but they do not. Any price we pay for a gallon of gasoline--whether $1 or $3--we pay voluntarily, based on the value of the gasoline to us. If we think we are spending too much on gasoline, we are free to drive less, to buy more fuel-efficient cars, to use carpools or busses, or to travel by bicycle or on foot. Gas station owners cannot force us to buy gasoline; they can only offer us a trade, which we are free to accept or reject.

But, one might ask, without anti-"price gouging" laws won't owners of gasoline charge the absolute highest prices they can? Absolutely, and they have every moral right to do so--just as consumers of gasoline have every right to pay the lowest prices they can find. Gas station owners are not our servants. They are producers who spend money, exert effort, and assume risk to bring a product to market. They own the gasoline they sell, and like any property owner they should be free to set the terms of sale.

Since we pay the lowest price that we can find for gasoline (and never more than it is worth to us), and gas stations sell gasoline for the highest price they can get (and never less than it is worth to them), the price of gasoline is a reflection of mutually beneficial trade--the essence of proper interaction under capitalism. For a gas station owner to charge what the market will bear is no more "gouging" than it is for a computer programmer--or a cashier--to negotiate for the highest salary he can get.

Since the prevailing price of gasoline is the result of trade, it reflects not the arbitrary "greed" of gas station owners, but the facts of the market: the producers' costs, competition, and what customers are willing to pay. The reason that gasoline prices are higher after a natural disaster, for instance, is that the fact of relatively scarce supply leads various purchasers of oil and gasoline to compete to buy it, and bid up its price. Those who buy it are those who value it most, to the extent they value it most--like highly efficient factories overseas, or Americans providing for their most crucial transportation priorities.

Anti-"price gouging" laws prevent producers and their customers from trading at mutually beneficial prices--sacrificing their interests to the interests of those who wish to avoid the "hardship" of paying prices higher than they are used to. By what right can the government force producers to set artificially low prices and prevent consumers from bidding up the price to get the gasoline they are willing to pay for? By what right can the government demand that factory owners be deprived of the oil they are able to pay for--and their customers of the cheap products they happily purchase at Wal-Mart?

Anti-"price-gouging" laws are a particularly vicious form of price controls. Like all price controls, they deprive businesses of earned profit, promote shortages, and discourage future production. But they also forbid the indefinable: "unconscionable" prices, the meaning of which cannot be known until after the ruling of some bureaucrat. This added uncertainty discourages producers from being in business, period--especially in times of emergency, when "gouging" claims are most rampant. If a federal "price gouging" law is passed, will gas station owners do everything possible after the next natural disaster to remain open for business--will private contractors from other states rush to bring generators, food, and debris-clearing equipment? Or will they not bother for fear that the prices they set will be declared "unconscionable"?

The real threat to individual rights and justice is not the so-called price gouging of free individuals, but the price-control gouging of a coercive government. We must fight this threat by asserting, unequivocally, that gas station owners have a right to charge whatever prices they choose.

Alex Epstein was a writer and a fellow on staff at ARI between 2004 and 2011.

[jmort]

Let's see......

I have a job

I have a life

I don't care too much about the 22 LR shortage, I have a bunch and don't shoot much, if any, these days

I don't personally know anyone who is having a shortage problem

I refuse to play games and battle morons who have nothing better to do than wait in line at shops to buy ammo

This sums up my feelings about the .22 LR weenies

[jcwit]

The Myth of "Price-Gouging"
By Alex Epstein (Tampa Tribune, December 20, 2005; Calgary Herald, April 28, 2006)

The recent announcement of record profits by ExxonMobil and Chevron has revived widespread claims that these profits were extracted by "price gouging." Thus, the stage is set for Washington to pass a federal law banning "price gouging." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, for his part, has promised that "if the facts warrant it, I will support a federal anti-price gouging law."

But there are no facts that could warrant such a law, because there is no such thing as "price gouging" by private businesses.

The term "price gouging" implies that gas stations have an ability to forcibly inflict harm on us--but they do not. Any price we pay for a gallon of gasoline--whether $1 or $3--we pay voluntarily, based on the value of the gasoline to us. If we think we are spending too much on gasoline, we are free to drive less, to buy more fuel-efficient cars, to use carpools or busses, or to travel by bicycle or on foot. Gas station owners cannot force us to buy gasoline; they can only offer us a trade, which we are free to accept or reject.

But, one might ask, without anti-"price gouging" laws won't owners of gasoline charge the absolute highest prices they can? Absolutely, and they have every moral right to do so--just as consumers of gasoline have every right to pay the lowest prices they can find. Gas station owners are not our servants. They are producers who spend money, exert effort, and assume risk to bring a product to market. They own the gasoline they sell, and like any property owner they should be free to set the terms of sale.

Since we pay the lowest price that we can find for gasoline (and never more than it is worth to us), and gas stations sell gasoline for the highest price they can get (and never less than it is worth to them), the price of gasoline is a reflection of mutually beneficial trade--the essence of proper interaction under capitalism. For a gas station owner to charge what the market will bear is no more "gouging" than it is for a computer programmer--or a cashier--to negotiate for the highest salary he can get.

Since the prevailing price of gasoline is the result of trade, it reflects not the arbitrary "greed" of gas station owners, but the facts of the market: the producers' costs, competition, and what customers are willing to pay. The reason that gasoline prices are higher after a natural disaster, for instance, is that the fact of relatively scarce supply leads various purchasers of oil and gasoline to compete to buy it, and bid up its price. Those who buy it are those who value it most, to the extent they value it most--like highly efficient factories overseas, or Americans providing for their most crucial transportation priorities.

Anti-"price gouging" laws prevent producers and their customers from trading at mutually beneficial prices--sacrificing their interests to the interests of those who wish to avoid the "hardship" of paying prices higher than they are used to. By what right can the government force producers to set artificially low prices and prevent consumers from bidding up the price to get the gasoline they are willing to pay for? By what right can the government demand that factory owners be deprived of the oil they are able to pay for--and their customers of the cheap products they happily purchase at Wal-Mart?

Anti-"price-gouging" laws are a particularly vicious form of price controls. Like all price controls, they deprive businesses of earned profit, promote shortages, and discourage future production. But they also forbid the indefinable: "unconscionable" prices, the meaning of which cannot be known until after the ruling of some bureaucrat. This added uncertainty discourages producers from being in business, period--especially in times of emergency, when "gouging" claims are most rampant. If a federal "price gouging" law is passed, will gas station owners do everything possible after the next natural disaster to remain open for business--will private contractors from other states rush to bring generators, food, and debris-clearing equipment? Or will they not bother for fear that the prices they set will be declared "unconscionable"?

The real threat to individual rights and justice is not the so-called price gouging of free individuals, but the price-control gouging of a coercive government. We must fight this threat by asserting, unequivocally, that gas station owners have a right to charge whatever prices they choose.

Alex Epstein was a writer and a fellow on staff at ARI between 2004 and 2011.

Written by somebody and then published in a Florida newspaper and then a Canadian newspaper, about what our government wished to do 9 to 8 years ago, regarding the pricing of gas for vehicles. Even then it is just the writers opinion and nothing more.

[casterofboolits]

I share my small stash with my brothers and grand kids. Nothing for sale at any price.

[Big Z]

I'd have a hard time selling something I want to use and can't hardly replace. That said, my arm might be twisted for $50 ...maybe

[Jammersix]

One of the things that is amusing me is that the same people who are unhappy with the "gougers" are saying they wouldn't sell their .22 ammo-- that it's priceless.

That implies that the gougers are selling it at quite a bargain, and that it's a good deal.

I have 500 rounds I'll let go for $400.

Mere money, quite a bit lower than priceless.