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
All, I find it hard to believe that the posters here missed the point completely- that is, the second amendment is a right, and no different than the first, or any other. While the shootings are a terrible repulsive tragedy, the real fail in this is the parent of the shooter for being irresponsible with her guns. While most anything can be used as an assault weapon (Watch Jason Bourne movies), the gunshop owner is right to say his pencil is a weapon. And so is a screwdriver, a nail gun, a car, a shovel, and a BBQ skewer. Lets ban all of these items as well? The media, all the media, skips the real issue, and that is the intent of the shooter, what motivated that person to do what was done, and what influenced that action. Were drugs involved? Alcohol? Violent games? Pure and simple stupidity? Don't point to the gun, or to the second amendment, just because its easy to do, point at the cause, and use logic and reason to make an informed decision.
If I dont like what you say, what if I demanded the first amendment be revoked? Isn't that the same thing as everyone's knee-jerk reaction to the shooting?
People, just because you may not feel that you want a gun, or need one, the constitution guarantees arms ownership for a plainly obvious reason. I suggest you read the founding document and see all the other facts that it holds as well.
Read the Constitution!
As an exercise in producing a radio story, this does a good job of what it is apparently intended to do: namely, outraging its target audience. One wonders how much effort it took to find this particular individual to interview and how many other interviews were not broadcast. Or was it just a lucky accident?
Then we have the requisite comment from someone who apparently has learned about guns solely from watching movies. Samuel Jackson is an entertaining performer, but the movies in which he appears are fictional and do not reflect reality.
One important point always, always, always omitted from these stories is the use of guns by private individuals to defend themselves from attack. This makes every such story extremely unbalanced and propagandistic -- as if all stories on cars only focused on criminal uses and never on legitimate uses. Unfortunately, there are no good statistics on the number of Defensive Gun Uses (or DGUs) in the US. Estimates range from a low of a few thousand such uses per year (reported in the news media and thus almost certain to have actually happened) up to two million. When people get the impression, from news reporting, that there are 17,000 homicides committed with guns every year -- and NO benefits -- they naturally jump to the conclusion that Guns are Evil. If there are 17,000 homicides and (let's say) 50,000 defensive uses, then the conclusion is less obvious.
Yes, it is possible to kill someone -- or even several people -- with a pencil (though a ball-point pen would be better). And, yes, it is much easier to kill (or intimidate) someone with a gun than with a pencil. That is not always bad: a gun lets a 90-pound woman defend herself against a 200-pound attacker. The National Rifle Association reports many stories of people doing exactly that, gleaned from news media.
Guns are powerful tools for evil -- and also for good. When the national news media report ONLY the evil and never the good, they're being dishonest, deceptive, and biased. No doubt this is due to ignorance rather than malice, but at some point ignorance becomes willful.
Where did they find this guy? Did NPR go out of its way to find someone so incapable of defending guns just to make the pro-second amendment side look stupid? Or did they edit this guy to bits?
No gun store owners I know of would have let the 'assault weapons" lie be told over and over like this was. They would have corrected right away that the guns called assault weapons are just semi-automatic rifles that look military. They are small caliber rifles that are very popular for hunting and very useful in self defense. These "assault weapon bans" are really just to take away the hunting and self defense weapons of choice.
Why should Americans be allowed to own "Semi-Automatic weapons that have a military look"? would have been the question the reporter would have had to ask if the interviewee if he had countered the miss use of "assault weapon". Then the question can be answered "The need is there...the want is there. I'm an American. I'm a free person. I have the second amendment. I want it. I should be able to buy it."
Why shouldn't a person be allowed to use their Second Amendment listed Right to own a semiautomatic rifle in a hunting caliber? Why should it be banned because it is black, has cosmetic features that make it look like a military issued assault weapon? Instead of a counter point to the anti-second amendment report of the day before, we get a person who seemed more excited about being on the radio than making coherent arguments, lets NPR get away with miss use of terms, slanted response editing that makes all gun owners seem to be toothless inbreed nuts.
Regardless of where one stand's on gun control, I found this segment appalling on all counts. Is this guy supposed to be the voice of the American people because he was the only one heard from on the subject. He was overbearing, insensitive, biased, and inappropriately glib given the recent tragedy, and all tragedies related to guns. Really NPR? This was not only one-sided broadcasting, but worse yet, it was the rant of an extremist. The guy is a gun shop owner, showing bias. His ridiculous statement that a pencil could be an "assault weapon" is dismissive of the real issues with guns-all guns. So as a gun shop owner, how does he justify the costs of any gun, as opposed to say...a pencil! Does it not register with this guy that babies have been "gunned" down? It is true that people kill people. Also true, backed by statistics is that death by gunshot is significantly greater to the American public than death by pencil. I am left to wonder if Jeremy Hobson was so stunned by this guy's statements that he was left speechless! What other explanation could there be for his lack of response. This has long been a controversial issue, and now a highly emotional issue worthy of balanced and responsible journalism.
"The need is there...the want is there. I'm an American. I'm a free person. I have the second amendment. I want it. I should be able to buy it."
Wow. This guy sucks. If Americans want something they should be able to have it? I just don't understand how anyone can buy into these asinine arguments.
When do you expect to hear this headline, Mr. Gerstenkorn?:
"Today a pencilman forced his way into a school and killed 20 children and six adults using a pencil. The pencilman then turned the pencil on himself. Police say the man was armed with no. 2 pencil, a no. 3 pencil, and a mechanical pencil with hundreds of lead refills. No word yet on the killer's motives."
I just listened to the segment on Guns and Dollars. The gun shop owner from Wyoming had issues with the term "assualt weapon," stating that a PENCIL could be used or termed an assault weapon.
Allow me to quote the character played by Samuel L Jackson, in the film Jackie Brown. "AK-47 -- the weapon of choice, when you ablosutely, positively, have to kill every mother f--ker in the room." I sincerely doubt that any of the perps in any of these many mass killings would have selected a PENCIL as their weapon of choice, if their objective was to "absolutely, positively kill every mother f--ker in the room," unless that PENCIL was adhered to an AK-47, AR-15, or any other automatic / semi-automatic weapon with large caliber and a huge clip. I doubt they mis-understood the meaning or function of an eraser.
Any reporter on the BBC would have either questioned the premice, or terminated the interview due to its utter inanity. I was embarassed by your pasivity.
Pages
