Are Guns And Ammo The New Gold?


Suverans2's picture

Yes, because gold is too heavy to throw at attackers and mobile food sources.

KenK's picture

Beware. Gun control would be impossible to implement as in say England (ie, "turn 'em all in folks or else!") here in America because so many would resist. But "ammo control" is quite possible and much easier to enforce. I saw on a gun control policy center website that [said] American households have about 1.5 years worth of ammo in their homes. If serious troubles ensued and the supply was cut off that time frame would likely be much shorter. Bottom Line: Expensive and heavily customized arms like ARs or AKs but without ammo are just expensive clubs. (Now my friend White Indian is okay with clubs presumably but the rest of us would be f*cked.) Paul Bonneau in his excellent STR gun articles is correct IMHO about one thing most of all: Stick to weapons in mil calibers so we can buy, trade, steal, capture, or otherwise obtain some from state arsenals. You can shoot a deer, antelope or pig with a box of 5.56mm and defend yourself as well. But an AR in 6.5mm Creedmore with no ammo is worth what? If you put your faith in gold, food, or other tradable commodities is well and fine, if you have a gun and ammo to defend it; but an unarmed man with gold, food, is just a victim waiting to be robbed. I know the Austrian economists, Randroids, and etc will denounce me for not being rational or understand supply curves and what all but that's how I see it. so there's my rant.

KenK's picture

Sorry about the double post.

WhiteIndian's picture

War clubs are for agriculturalists.

" is now a tenet of mainstream scholarship that pre-civilization humans lived in the absence of violence—more specifically, of organized violence..."

John Zerzan
The Origins of War

KenK's picture

Okay but that was then this is now. If industrial society breaks down hard and quick (like Hurricane Katrina) rather than slowly over decades (like the Anasazi die off) what do you recommend as a specific practice? Not baiting you here WI I'd just like to know.

WhiteIndian's picture

I'll answer your specific question, but I want to preface it first. So scroll down if this bores you! :)

I'm engaging libertarian types primarily because I am formerly libertarian/Austrian/an-cap. However, after studying the origins of the agricultural city-State (civilization) and the Original Affluent Society (Sahlins, 1974,) I've found that most of libertarian economic theory and premises just do not hold up to empirical data. Frankly, I see libertarian theory as mostly a fallacy now (as well as most other economics -- they're all predicated on the agricultural city-State being "progress.") Whether or not I want to live a Non-State society lifestyle doesn't really matter, the critique of civilization debunks libertarian economic theory as thoroughly as the Origin of the Species debunks Literalist Fundamentalism.

To answer your question about a fast collapse of city-Statism (civilization): it'll go nuclear. You'll need a fallout shelter (or move to NZ or Patagonia) and re-wilding skills, and the temperament to ascend from city-Statism to an evolutionarily stable Non-State lifeway honoring your genetic heritage. Collapse of city-Statism will, eventually, increase quality of life.

Kevin Flaherty, who has a small permaculture farmlet in NZ, parallels my analysis here: "Rather than attempting to bring down The Machine suddenly, in a manner that would, almost certainly, result in the use of strategic nuclear weapons, we should gradually destroy The Machine (and let it destroy itself), while learning the skills necessary to make living in a post collapse reality not only possible, but enjoyable." ~

Jeff Vail's "rhizome theory" is probably the most intelligent analysis of a Non-Statist future after City-Statism (civilization) collapses, including a hybrid hunter/gatherer/horticulture lifeway, much like the Eastern Woodland Indians living in The Great Peace enjoyed.

Paul's picture

Actually I wouldn't completely sneer at non-military calibers, if that's what you have. Just stock up on ammo for it. Also things like 6.5 Creedmoor can be made from .308. But if you are buying a new gun, and you have a choice, make sure you are heavy in military caliber guns before fooling with anything else.

Buy lots of .22LR, 9mm, .40 S&W, .223 and .308. Buy in case lots (say 500 or 1000 rounds, or thereabouts) to save money. Try to get Boxer-primed ammo (as it is easily reloadable, unlike Berdan-primed which is impossible to reload for all practical purposes). Buy lots of reloading components, but concentrating especially on primers (small pistol, small rifle and large rifle). Pick up and save all your Boxer-primed brass when you go shooting (you can tell by looking into the bottom of the case with a good light - Boxer has one large hole, Berdan two smaller holes). Personally, I'd stay away from Russian made ammo like Wolf, although some like it.

It's not a bad idea to buy ammo even if you don't yet have a gun for it., Wideners, etc...
Store your ammo in a cool, dry place.

KenK's picture

A real post collapse business opportunity would be to stockpile the means necessary to manufacture popular ammo calibers for sale or trade. And the odd or wildcat calibers on a custom basis. I know a few people that have offered to load ammo for friends on a cost plus basis in exchange for money or trades. It can't really be much of business opportunity (for now) because insurance costs and legal liabilities prevent it from being profitable except on an industrial scale. A 1000 rd. lot of 7.62 NATO ball ammo in trade for medical treatment, homemade whiskey, or bushels of corn is totally feasible. Or would be. Given that scenario it would really make you consider the true utility or value of a .44-40 or 7.65mm handgun even if it is a classic like a SA Colt revolver or a German-made Luger.