M/clear
12°
M/clear
Hi 27° | Lo 18°

Letter: Hazardous hoarding?

I decided to go out and pick up some ammo for some target shooting and was shocked by the lack of availability, and when available, the price. In every instance, I was told it was because people are hoarding ammo and reloading supplies, so there is high demand and short supply.

It occurred to me that all of these hoarders now have stockpiles of highly explosive materials in their homes. It seems to me that this would place firefighters in a particularly hazardous situation, not that firefighting on its own isn’t hazardous. How can we reconcile asking firefighters to battle a house fire if there is a chance of being killed by exploding munitions, more so with volunteer firefighters?

Just how do fire departments approach this issue? Is the homeowner responsible for bullet injuries to firefighters? A friend’s house caught fire about 15 years ago, but the volunteer firefighters heard exploding bullets and let the house burn down, making sure only that the fire didn’t spread.

Yes, I have guns and ammo, but I will be calling my insurance company to be safe.

GEOFFREY CARSON

Webster

Legacy Comments12

The hoarding was done on the part of Homeland Security. More than likely the orders came down from the White House to buy up as much as possible. Goes along with the light armored vehicles they purchased. Gun owners are happy to get what they can, much less hoard ammunition.

When this crew says, "More than likely...," you can bet your last nickel that it's about as likely as seeing a brontosaurus ambling down North Main Street.

gd & rf, Quite correct (but then you knew that). Have to wonder if this just more soc/left fear-mongering in sheep's clothing. As in, "Quick - all you moms and daughters - get hysterical and ask Dad to get rid of his weapons!. If that doesn't work - claim its for the "safety of the children"". I know, I know - hard to believe but ti has happened before. . If I hear one more leftist wrap themselves in a (faux) cloak of sanctimonious indignation and claim, "Its for the children"; I may throw-up.

TCB: Citation,, please, for the "soc/left fear-mongering in sheep's clothing." As far as the "leftist...sanctimonious indignation and claim, 'Its [sic] for the children'" is concerned, IF that exists, I'm sure that it will end on the same day as "right-wingers" stop passing antiabortion laws which do not included exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother while claiming it's for "a woman's health."

Michaelton, On the pro-choice, I differ from most right thinking people who are on the right (- relax - that was humor). Please consider some of my posts to letters on the feminist health center issue.

I may throw-up as well if I keep seeing the. I "It's for the children" Sig Sauer commercial. It goes both ways. You must be slightly paranoid with the fear mongering crack. Someone, especially a gun owner can't ask a question without a political agenda? This is the problem today, everybody has to be pigeon holed as a conservative or liberal. What happens to the majority of people are whose lives are not defined by a us against them siege mentality. If I disagree with you, itsa, bunnynh or even gwtw, I automatically get labeled a lefty. I am always suspicious of certain folk that always use the phrase fact fact fact in their posts. I do not believe in absolutes, because besides death and taxes there really aren't any absolutes, nor should there be,

The sad part is that these people spent a lot of money hoarding ammunition for no good reason other than they fell for the fearmongering of certain groups that can not tell reality from fiction. None of the legislation they feared so much had anything in it that would have limited the purchase of ammunition or resulted in the goverment confiscating all of their guns. Unless of course they were felons or mentaly unstable.

Now that is silly. I think that anyone trusting the government and anyone thinking that martial law or a takeover by extremists could not happen would have to be hoping that it does.

Well, you are wrong. Smokeless powder is a propellant, not an explosive. It does not explode as you envision, not unless it is in a tightly confined spot, such as a firing chamber of a gun. Furthermore, ammunition sitting in a box which is ignited in a fire poses little risk to firefighters, in tems of bullet injuries. Any velocity is minimal, not enough to penetrate through clothing or skin. Thus, you've never read about firefighters being hurt or killed by burning ammunition. You never will either. The thoughts you express in your letter are good to have, but the truth is there is no risk. Large amounts of ammunition burn in house fires every day in America. Sometimes a brief flare up caused by burning powder might happen in part of the house, but bullet injuries aren't likely.

gdn1, you are correct. If loose ammunition ignites, not only is there no chamber to create the pressure that would be in a firearm, but the bullet would simply pop off and not go far, with no barrel to direct it anywhere. Isn't it amazing how much you read about firearms and ammunition that is simply "misunderstood"? I hope firefighters realize this is not particularly hazardous.

Shouldn't the Monitor check the accuracy of the assumptions on this subject before publishing the letter?

Thanks for the snarky reply, I was curious just what the danger would be. Since I have never thrown a bullet into an open flame I had no first hand knowledge, so thanks gdn1. As for cans of powder, they may not explode but they certainly are an accelerant. I still am curious if firefighters have any concerns?

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.