23
Plenty of changes for gun shop owners after Newtown shooting
Frank Gerstenkorn's gun shop in Cheyenne, Wy.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Gun shop owner Frank Gerstenkorn.
After the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., there's been national discussion around gun policy. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is planning to reintroduce the assault weapons ban during the next Congress.
And for gun shop owners across America, that could mean some changes in the way they do business.
Frank Gerstenkorn is the owner of Guns & Gear, a gun shop in Cheyenne, Wy. There's a rush from customers to buy guns in case any legislation banning guns gets put into place.
"Product has been flying off the shelves," Gerstenkorn says.
In his own shop, assault guns account for about 20 percent of his business. But even if assault weapons are banned, he says there's still ways to stay profitable.
"We have to make internal adjustments and have to emphasize other parts of the shooting industry," he says. "There may not be a way to make as much money, but you'll stay very busy."
Note that Gerstenkorn says he doesn't believe in a ban on assault weapons -- he says they should be protected under the Second Amendment.
"Let's not call them 'assault' weapons because that's not what they are. I've got a pencil in my pocket. That's an assault weapon."
Pages
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next ›
Gene, you appear woefully misinformed.
AK-47's are extremely difficult to own. First, you must find one. They cost $10,000 and up. Then, you must go through an exhaustive background check that includes photographs, fingerprints, written approval of local law enforcement, a $200 federal tax stamp, and then a 12-16 MONTH waiting period. No legally-owned AK-47 has ever been used in a crime in the US.
The "AK-47" you can buy at your local firearms dealer is not an actual AK-47. It is not capable of automatic fire. It looks like one, but it is no different than any self-loading hunting rifle. One bullet comes out of the barrel each time the trigger is pulled. The only difference is it looks "scary" to the ignorant because it resembles an actual AK-47, and it fires a smaller and less-powerful bullet.
Neither the imitation AK-47 nor the AR-15 are "automatic" weapons. One trigger pull releases one bullet. They cannot be converted to automatic any more than a Honda Accord can be converted into and Indy Car. Even possessing any of the required components is illegal and earns a ten year jail term.
Neither the imitation AK-47 nor the AR-15 use a "large caliber". The are in-fact small-caliber, medium-powered rifles. Most hunting rifles and many pistols use larger bullets. Most hunting rifles are more powerful. The AR-15 fires a .22 caliber bullet and the AK-47 look-alikes fire a .30 caliber bullet. The famous M1 Garand (also a semi-automatic) used by Americans in WWII to liberate Europe fires a much, much more powerful round capable of penetrating steel armor. Yet no politician has ever attempted to ban civilian ownership of that rifle and they are usually cheaper to buy than the other two "scary" rifles.
Neither the imitation AK-47 nor the AR-15 use "huge clips". Neither one uses a "clip" at all. These two use detachable magazines. The M1 does use a clip that loads 8 cartridges into it's magazine.
As for "huge" - both rifles use a standard-capacity magazines that hold 30 cartridges or "rounds". These are their original designed capacities. There are magazines that hold 40, 60, and 100 rounds which can be legitimately called "high capacity", but it is either ignorant or dishonest to call 30-round magazines by the same name.
If you think limiting magazine capacity will make any difference, you are misinformed there too. Look up Suzanna Gratia Hupp's testimony before Congress (it's on youtube). She survived the Luby's massacre in Texas many years ago. She lost her parents in that attack. She used to carry a gun but was stripped of that right by the government, and her parents and 21 other people paid the ultimate price. In her testimony she made it very clear that limiting magazine capacity is a fool's errand; it won't make any difference. So unless you have survived a mass shooting, I think you should defer to the testimony of somebody who has been there. It would be arrogance to assume you know more than she does.
LandOfTheFree - Please read your comment as though you were someone else. You sound just like someone who is about to lose it- the exact type of individual "we" don't want owning any type of weapon. And when you are absolutely sure that your belief on this subject is worth dying for, please start with yourself.
The gun shop owner's assertion that a pencil is an assault weapon is outrageous and should be challenged by any responsible journalist. We accept any answer to questions in the news, patently false and ridiculous answers should be challenged or discarded as bogus.
Whoa, very disturbing interview. Thanks for simply letting your audience hear this sort of thinking in the words of the true believer. Although we will not all come away with the same reaction, it should certainly give us all pause for thought (and that in itself is useful).
Not so fast - I endorse Mr. Gerstenkorn's assertion - and I think he provides a thoughtful solution to the debate! The course that he was given on how to use a pencil as an assault weapon should be widely available. I'm confident that such a course, just as with most/all martial arts training, will teach self-control and self-restraint as part of self-defense. Knowing how to put a pencil to its multiple good uses - including writing out our grievances rather than physically assaulting others - provides the alternative to the AR15 and allows us to eliminate its manufacture and sale. Mr. Gerstenkorn, my champion!
Jeremy,
As an educated member of the media I'm sure you know this, though I'm uncertain why you failed to mention it during your interview. It's surprising because the whole story is based on a false premise.
The rifle used by Lanza to commit his horrific crimes was not an "assault weapon", much less an actual assault rifle. Anyone who says that it was is either ignorant (non-pejorative sense), willfully ignorant, or simply lying. How do I know? Because Connecticut banned "assault weapons" in 1993. The Lanzas were not legally allowed to own an "assault weapon" and the police said the gun was legally owned. Therefore not even Connecticut thinks it's an "assault weapon".
This also illustrates the inanity of banning "assault weapons". Why are people foaming at the mouth to ban a weapon that wasn't even used in the crime? Studies proved the last AWB had zero effect on crime, why do they think it would be different now? There isn't much logic or reason being applied here.
That would be a good idea. Since the Second Amendment's primary purpose is to protect us from the people in government, the government should disarm first. Are politicians lives worth more than ours? Of course not. So then why should they and their families be protected by men and women armed with actual assault rifles (capable of automatic fire) while they write laws to disarms us and leave our families unprotected?
They should lead by example and disarm all federal security forces and agencies. Then state and local agencies. If they accomplish that first, I will gladly give up my firearms. Until then it is my Constitutional duty to be armed, just like paying taxes, voting, and jury duty.
Pages
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next ›
