1.6 Billion Rounds - Hypocritical?

[KevinWestern]

Just wanted to pose a brief question (sorry if it's been asked before):

is it hypocritical for the President to push hard on gun control (and speak on the horrors of guns, ect) while at the same time have his Department of Homeland Security order an unprecedented and dramatic amount of ammunition (1.6 BILLION rounds)?

As for my opinion, the ammo buy is perplexing and extremely odd. If at the HEIGHT of the Iraq war, our troops used about ~16 million rounds of ammo annually, why in the world would a domestic department (no war going on in the US) need to purchase 100x that amount in a time of extreme gov't debt?

Source:
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes


Thanks all!

 

[konradv]

Just wanted to pose a brief question (sorry if it's been asked before):

is it hypocritical for the President to push hard on gun control (and speak on the horrors of guns, ect) while at the same time have his Department of Homeland Security order an unprecedented and dramatic amount of ammunition (1.6 BILLION rounds)?

As for my opinion, the ammo buy is perplexing and extremely odd. If at the HEIGHT of the Iraq war, our troops used about ~16 million rounds of ammo annually, why in the world would a domestic department (no war going on in the US) need to purchase 100x that amount in a time of extreme gov't debt?

Bulk purchases to save money seems odd to you?

Also, it's an open purchase order for the rounds that haven't been delivered and may not be for a number of years. Shortages in ammunition are not due to government buys, but because of fear of a shortage and hoarding by the general public.

 

[KevinWestern]

Bulk purchases to save money seems odd to you?

Also, it's an open purchase order for the rounds that haven't been delivered and may not be for a number of years. Shortages in ammunition are not due to government buys, but because of fear of a shortage and hoarding by the general public.

Just a simple “bulk purchase”?

Konradv, you need to address the fact that this is 1.6 billion bullets; enough ammo to sustain a ALL-OUT war with a country like Iraq for 100 years – and it’s for use domestically!

Perhaps if they bought 15 million rounds the “bulk order” story could work (enough rounds to last the DHS a century at current rates of use, mind you), but 1.6 billion is simply too many rounds for any logical ‘price saving’ rationale. Also, I would like to think that bullets/technology will evolve in the next 500 years, don’t you (because that's how long it's gonna take them to use all of those bullets under our current peacetime situation here in the US).

What about the tens of millions of hollow-tips? Purchasing bullets that are so deadly they're banned in warfare for domestic use during peacetime doesn't scream "end gun violence" to me.

Thoughts?

 

[ogibillm]

Bulk purchases to save money seems odd to you?

Also, it's an open purchase order for the rounds that haven't been delivered and may not be for a number of years. Shortages in ammunition are not due to government buys, but because of fear of a shortage and hoarding by the general public.

Just a simple “bulk purchase”?

Konradv, you need to address the fact that this is 1.6 billion bullets; enough ammo to sustain a ALL-OUT war with a country like Iraq for 100 years – and it’s for use domestically!

Perhaps if they bought 15 million rounds the “bulk order” story could work (enough rounds to last the DHS a century at current rates of use, mind you), but 1.6 billion is simply too many rounds for any logical ‘price saving’ rationale. Also, I would like to think that bullets/technology will evolve in the next 500 years, don’t you (because that's how long it's gonna take them to use all of those bullets under our current peacetime situation here in the US).

What about the tens of millions of hollow-tips? Purchasing bullets that are so deadly they're banned in warfare for domestic use during peacetime doesn't scream "end gun violence" to me.

Thoughts?

do you have any primary sources that corroborate the 1.6 billion number?

 

[whitehall]

How else is the Attorney General going to supply the Mexican drug cartels with enough ammunition?

 

[KevinWestern]

Bulk purchases to save money seems odd to you?

Also, it's an open purchase order for the rounds that haven't been delivered and may not be for a number of years. Shortages in ammunition are not due to government buys, but because of fear of a shortage and hoarding by the general public.

Just a simple “bulk purchase”?

Konradv, you need to address the fact that this is 1.6 billion bullets; enough ammo to sustain a ALL-OUT war with a country like Iraq for 100 years – and it’s for use domestically!

Perhaps if they bought 15 million rounds the “bulk order” story could work (enough rounds to last the DHS a century at current rates of use, mind you), but 1.6 billion is simply too many rounds for any logical ‘price saving’ rationale. Also, I would like to think that bullets/technology will evolve in the next 500 years, don’t you (because that's how long it's gonna take them to use all of those bullets under our current peacetime situation here in the US).

What about the tens of millions of hollow-tips? Purchasing bullets that are so deadly they're banned in warfare for domestic use during peacetime doesn't scream "end gun violence" to me.

Thoughts?

do you have any primary sources that corroborate the 1.6 billion number?

Nope, just the Forbes.

 

[Circe]

Perhaps if they bought 15 million rounds the “bulk order” story could work (enough rounds to last the DHS a century at current rates of use, mind you), but 1.6 billion is simply too many rounds for any logical ‘price saving’ rationale. Also, I would like to think that bullets/technology will evolve in the next 500 years, don’t you (because that's how long it's gonna take them to use all of those bullets under our current peacetime situation here in the US).

What about the tens of millions of hollow-tips? Purchasing bullets that are so deadly they're banned in warfare for domestic use during peacetime doesn't scream "end gun violence" to me.

Thoughts?

Yeah.......it is weird, and unsettling. Good thread question.

Does anyone know if this has ever happened before, huge government bulk purchases like this?

There are two sides to this; I was just thinking of starting a thread asking why the huge private gun/ammo collections are being stockpiled now? That's never happened before, either.

The two ideas I can think of right away is that 1) the government is trying to soak up all possible ammo to deny it to the civilian population. Why would they do this? Perhaps to make it too hard to build up these huge gun collections happening now and so some of the less-committed folks would drop out of the stockpiling?

2) The government expects revolution and is stockpiling its own weapons/ammo to fight back? Shooooooooo......I expect revolution, too, considering the huge crowds at gun shows --- in my area people lined up around the block, couldn't even get in, fire marshalls stood at the door clicking off how many were in the building before they let anyone else in! And all the big stores in the area are simply out of ammo. One website is only putting up what they just got in and when someone orders it, they take that off the website: no back orders, too long a wait and too uncertain. Something is certainly going on with the motivations of private persons for large weapons stockpiles. And now the government is buying extremely large amounts of ammunition. To fight back, perhaps.

Anyone have any other ideas?

 

[editec]

Following the link from Forbes to their "source" (what kid of journalism is it when one publisher's source is still another publishers? A complaint for a different thread)

The government's explanation is less sinister. Federal solicitations to buy the ammo are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga. The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Read more: Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo - The Denver Post Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

I mean I don't know if I believe Ms Dixon's explanation, either.

But in leiu of any other data about the "normal" purchasing behavior of the government?

We're ALL just guessing.

 

[KevinWestern]

Following the link from Forbes to their "source" (what kid of journalism is it when one publisher's source is still another publishers? A complaint for a different thread)

The government's explanation is less sinister. Federal solicitations to buy the ammo are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga. The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Read more: Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo - The Denver Post Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

I mean I don't know if I believe Ms Dixon's explanation, either.

But in leiu of any other data about the "normal" purchasing behavior of the government?

We're ALL just guessing.

Just did a quick search and saw that Fox News, Huffington Post, and others reported the same thing.

Huffington Post reports that the DHS fully admits to the ammo buy and explains its action by mentioning "bulk buys reduce prices".

But again.... 1.6 Billion bullets? Even over a span of 100 years that is way, way too much for a domestic spy organization. 5 bullets for every man, woman, child, and baby in this country.

Don't you consider that a tad ridiculous? There's no logical explanation.

 

[Circe]

But again.... 1.6 Billion bullets? Even over a span of 100 years that is way, way too much for a domestic spy organization. 5 bullets for every man, woman, child, and baby in this country.

Don't you consider that a tad ridiculous? There's no logical explanation.

Apparently it's true, though: they're admitting it.

So what do you think the government is buying all those bullets for?

 

[KevinWestern]

But again.... 1.6 Billion bullets? Even over a span of 100 years that is way, way too much for a domestic spy organization. 5 bullets for every man, woman, child, and baby in this country.

Don't you consider that a tad ridiculous? There's no logical explanation.

Apparently it's true, though: they're admitting it.

So what do you think the government is buying all those bullets for?

Good question. A few very credible economists have been saying that a second financial collapse is imminent. Apparently banks (globally) are still sitting on $700,000,000,000,000 (yes, seven hundred trillion) worth of derivatives, and that the bubble will eventually burst. Not to mention, our gov’t (especially during the Obama years) has done virtually nothing to punish the wrongdoing that crashed our economy the first time. Zero senior ranking Wall Street officials have been sent to jail under his tenure. When a child’s misdeeds goes unpunished (and is even rewarded), we all know what happens next…

And when it bursts a second time, these debt ridden governments will not be able to “come to the rescue”. You can’t just print money forever; eventually inflation will hit in a big way. And when this occurs, temporary and/or long term disruptions to our supply chains (and ultimately way of life) will follow.

And when people who cannot survive independently and are used to everything being packaged and handed to them on a store shelf – like the majority of Americans – no longer have a means to obtain food, ect, there is going to be widespread chaos.

And widespread chaos needs to be controlled.

In short, I think the gov’t is not optimistic about our economic future and is preparing (obviously) for the worst of the worst to occur.

 

[edthecynic]

Following the link from Forbes to their "source" (what kid of journalism is it when one publisher's source is still another publishers? A complaint for a different thread)

The government's explanation is less sinister. Federal solicitations to buy the ammo are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga. The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Read more: Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo - The Denver Post Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammo - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

I mean I don't know if I believe Ms Dixon's explanation, either.

But in leiu of any other data about the "normal" purchasing behavior of the government?

We're ALL just guessing.

Just did a quick search and saw that Fox News, Huffington Post, and others reported the same thing.

Huffington Post reports that the DHS fully admits to the ammo buy and explains its action by mentioning "bulk buys reduce prices".

But again.... 1.6 Billion bullets? Even over a span of 100 years that is way, way too much for a domestic spy organization. 5 bullets for every man, woman, child, and baby in this country.

Don't you consider that a tad ridiculous? There's no logical explanation.

The 1.6 billion is completely made up. It's incredible just how gullible the Misinformation Voter is no matter how many times the GOP lie to them through their disinformation echo chamber!!!

Forbes cites the Denver Post and they cite a nonexistent Reuters story.

The Homeland Security Department will buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition for law enforcement training purposes. (Hyungwon Kang, Reuters)

Hyungwon Kang | Journalist Profile | Reuters.com

 

[KevinWestern]

Forbes cites the Denver Post and they cite a nonexistent Reuters story.

The Homeland Security Department will buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition for law enforcement training purposes. (Hyungwon Kang, Reuters)

Hyungwon Kang | Journalist Profile | Reuters.com

Hey Edthecynic, you claim the 1.6 billion is a 'made up' figure, and boast that everyone who believes it is 'gullible', but at the end of the day I have a few sources to back up my claim and you have provided us with absolutely nothing to back up yours. How did you come up with your conclusion that it was 'made up' - in your head? Not a strong argument, sorry.

Forbes is a rather mainstream reporting mechanism (it's not like I'm citing some random forum or infowars, ect). We'll have to see in the coming days and months if other outlets pick up on this as well. As I mentioned, there was a FoxNews and HuffPost mention of this figure as well:

"The Homeland Security Department wants to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. It says it needs them – roughly the equivalent of five bullets for every person in the United States – for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.

Published federal notices about the ammo buy have agitated conspiracy theorists since the fall." -Huffington Post, Feb 2013





Homeland Security Explains Plan To Purchase More Than 1.6 Billion Bullets: Buying In Bulk Is Cheaper


.

 

[Circe]

Good question. A few very credible economists have been saying that a second financial collapse is imminent. Apparently banks (globally) are still sitting on $700,000,000,000,000 (yes, seven hundred trillion) worth of derivatives, and that the bubble will eventually burst. Not to mention, our gov’t (especially during the Obama years) has done virtually nothing to punish the wrongdoing that crashed our economy the first time. Zero senior ranking Wall Street officials have been sent to jail under his tenure. When a child’s misdeeds goes unpunished (and is even rewarded), we all know what happens next…

And when it bursts a second time, these debt ridden governments will not be able to “come to the rescue”. You can’t just print money forever; eventually inflation will hit in a big way. And when this occurs, temporary and/or long term disruptions to our supply chains (and ultimately way of life) will follow.

And when people who cannot survive independently and are used to everything being packaged and handed to them on a store shelf – like the majority of Americans – no longer have a means to obtain food, ect, there is going to be widespread chaos.

And widespread chaos needs to be controlled.

In short, I think the gov’t is not optimistic about our economic future and is preparing (obviously) for the worst of the worst to occur.

Very interesting! My idea was that they were preparing for revolution/civil war, but you are thinking TEOTWAWKI based on economic collapse. It certainly seems true to me that we are hanging way out on a cantilevered limb of a whole lot of people in cities and far from the land: and that's true all over the world now, too.

I realize that this scenario is also the basis for a lot of the gun and ammo hoarding going on now among private citizens.

 

[Underhill]

Just wanted to pose a brief question (sorry if it's been asked before):

is it hypocritical for the President to push hard on gun control (and speak on the horrors of guns, ect) while at the same time have his Department of Homeland Security order an unprecedented and dramatic amount of ammunition (1.6 BILLION rounds)?

As for my opinion, the ammo buy is perplexing and extremely odd. If at the HEIGHT of the Iraq war, our troops used about ~16 million rounds of ammo annually, why in the world would a domestic department (no war going on in the US) need to purchase 100x that amount in a time of extreme gov't debt?

Source:
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes


Thanks all!

The article you linked to says 20 million rounds is enough for 1 month in Iraq. So where are you getting your 16 million annually? In 2007 the FBI ordered 54 million rounds for one year from Winchester.

It's an open order, we do the same thing here at work. Most suppliers require a purchase order to fulfill an order. In other words whenever someone from homeland security needs ammo they can order it now without getting a separate purchase order up to the maximum which they will never use.

They know they will never use that much, they are simply making it so they won't need another purchase order for ammo for a long time.

It's a shitty fiscal policy, but it doesn't mean there is some nefarious plot at work.

 

[KevinWestern]

The article you linked to says 20 million rounds is enough for 1 month in Iraq. So where are you getting your 16 million annually? In 2007 the FBI ordered 54 million rounds for one year from Winchester.

It's an open order, we do the same thing here at work. Most suppliers require a purchase order to fulfill an order. In other words whenever someone from homeland security needs ammo they can order it now without getting a separate purchase order up to the maximum which they will never use.

They know they will never use that much, they are simply making it so they won't need another purchase order for ammo for a long time.

It's a shitty fiscal policy, but it doesn't mean there is some nefarious plot at work.

I believe the article says (direct quote) "at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month". Just checked on the 16 million quote (of mine) and it was wrong - I apologize. It's actually more like 70 million/year. This was an honest mistake, not trying to mislead.

Good point with the Purchase Order comment. I'm definitely aware of how purchase orders work due to the fact I deal with them all the time in my job.

However, will note that purchase orders are generally formed to be a somewhat accurate representation of what is to be ordered. How fair is it for a company to say they want a billion plastic bottles over the course of the year, lock in a fantastic rate, and then only order 15 million at the end of the day? That stuff doesn't fly for very long.

Per the Huff Post article, it's also stated that the Gov't plans to use this order over 4-5 years. Even so, 1.6 billion over 5 years is still way to many bullets, and a ridiculous figure for (again) a domestic spy agency to "need".

.

 

[Underhill]

The article you linked to says 20 million rounds is enough for 1 month in Iraq. So where are you getting your 16 million annually? In 2007 the FBI ordered 54 million rounds for one year from Winchester.

It's an open order, we do the same thing here at work. Most suppliers require a purchase order to fulfill an order. In other words whenever someone from homeland security needs ammo they can order it now without getting a separate purchase order up to the maximum which they will never use.

They know they will never use that much, they are simply making it so they won't need another purchase order for ammo for a long time.

It's a shitty fiscal policy, but it doesn't mean there is some nefarious plot at work.

I believe the article says (direct quote) "at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month". Just checked on the 16 million quote (of mine) and it was wrong - I apologize. It's actually more like 70 million/year. This was an honest mistake, not trying to mislead.

Good point with the Purchase Order comment. I'm definitely aware of how purchase orders work due to the fact I deal with them all the time in my job.

However, will note that purchase orders are generally formed to be a somewhat accurate representation of what is to be ordered. How fair is it for a company to say they want a billion plastic bottles over the course of the year, lock in a fantastic rate, and then only order 15 million at the end of the day? That stuff doesn't fly for very long.

Per the Huff Post article, it's also stated that the Gov't plans to use this order over 4-5 years. Even so, 1.6 billion over 5 years is still way to many bullets, and a ridiculous figure for (again) a domestic spy agency to "need".

.

I agree that it is too much to need. But I still doubt it's based upon that. If anything it may be based upon some end of the world, insane scenario where the shit hits the fan and they need to be armed for the apocalypse.

And that even makes some sense. But there are better ways to handle it. They could easily take out a purchase order for 50 million rounds with a contingency built in for more if needed.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow open ended PO's. They should have to account for a need. It's not that hard to calculate. As an example, if we have 50,000 agents, who need annually 900 rounds for practice and 100 for field use (to carry in the field). So 50 million a year. Problem solved.

But this is the easiest method for making sure everyone has every round they might ever need, in any situation.

 

[KevinWestern]

The article you linked to says 20 million rounds is enough for 1 month in Iraq. So where are you getting your 16 million annually? In 2007 the FBI ordered 54 million rounds for one year from Winchester.

It's an open order, we do the same thing here at work. Most suppliers require a purchase order to fulfill an order. In other words whenever someone from homeland security needs ammo they can order it now without getting a separate purchase order up to the maximum which they will never use.

They know they will never use that much, they are simply making it so they won't need another purchase order for ammo for a long time.

It's a shitty fiscal policy, but it doesn't mean there is some nefarious plot at work.

I believe the article says (direct quote) "at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month". Just checked on the 16 million quote (of mine) and it was wrong - I apologize. It's actually more like 70 million/year. This was an honest mistake, not trying to mislead.

Good point with the Purchase Order comment. I'm definitely aware of how purchase orders work due to the fact I deal with them all the time in my job.

However, will note that purchase orders are generally formed to be a somewhat accurate representation of what is to be ordered. How fair is it for a company to say they want a billion plastic bottles over the course of the year, lock in a fantastic rate, and then only order 15 million at the end of the day? That stuff doesn't fly for very long.

Per the Huff Post article, it's also stated that the Gov't plans to use this order over 4-5 years. Even so, 1.6 billion over 5 years is still way to many bullets, and a ridiculous figure for (again) a domestic spy agency to "need".

.

I agree that it is too much to need. But I still doubt it's based upon that. If anything it may be based upon some end of the world, insane scenario where the shit hits the fan and they need to be armed for the apocalypse.

And that even makes some sense. But there are better ways to handle it. They could easily take out a purchase order for 50 million rounds with a contingency built in for more if needed.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't allow open ended PO's. They should have to account for a need. It's not that hard to calculate. As an example, if we have 50,000 agents, who need annually 900 rounds for practice and 100 for field use (to carry in the field). So 50 million a year. Problem solved.

But this is the easiest method for making sure everyone has every round they might ever need, in any situation.

Fair points.

 

[edthecynic]

Forbes cites the Denver Post and they cite a nonexistent Reuters story.

The Homeland Security Department will buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition for law enforcement training purposes. (Hyungwon Kang, Reuters)

Hyungwon Kang | Journalist Profile | Reuters.com

Hey Edthecynic, you claim the 1.6 billion is a 'made up' figure, and boast that everyone who believes it is 'gullible', but at the end of the day I have a few sources to back up my claim and you have provided us with absolutely nothing to back up yours. How did you come up with your conclusion that it was 'made up' - in your head? Not a strong argument, sorry.

Forbes is a rather mainstream reporting mechanism (it's not like I'm citing some random forum or infowars, ect). We'll have to see in the coming days and months if other outlets pick up on this as well. As I mentioned, there was a FoxNews and HuffPost mention of this figure as well:

"The Homeland Security Department wants to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. It says it needs them – roughly the equivalent of five bullets for every person in the United States – for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.

Published federal notices about the ammo buy have agitated conspiracy theorists since the fall." -Huffington Post, Feb 2013





Homeland Security Explains Plan To Purchase More Than 1.6 Billion Bullets: Buying In Bulk Is Cheaper


.

Forbes is hardly mainstream, unless mainstream leans hard Right, and Alex Jones is referenced in the HufPo article.

You have no support for the 1.6 billion, Homeland Security only acknowledges 750,000 over 5 years for training, target practice and duty.

 

[konradv]

While 1.6 billion may be a lot of bullets, I don't really see where the hypocrisy comes in. What does violence on the streets have to do with bulk purchases by government agencies? If you want to look for a connection on that score, it would seem to be anti-hypocritical. A round in a government warehouse is a round that isn't on the street. Also, scarcity which drives up prices may keep some killers out of the market. All in all, the question of why so many rounds were bought seems to have very little to do with the gun control debate, so the answer to the question posed in your subject line would be a resounding NO, IMO.