Gun stocks rises

Gun stocks for two major brands rose last week after a gunman opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing for a charity baseball game.

Sturm Ruger and American Outdoor Brands rose 1.79 percent and 1.11 percent, respectively, in the hours after 66-year-old James Hodgkinson wounded four at the Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, Virginia, Wednesday morning — including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Both stocks typically react to shooting incidents “as investors gauge the potential implication gun demand,” according to Seeking Alpha.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed last week a 7.62mm caliber rifle and a 9mm handgun were recovered from the scene.

American Outdoor Brands is the nation’s top handgun retailer and some believe escalating tensions at home and abroad will ultimately bring profits to an industry trying to climb out of last year’s shadow.

“We are continuing to see brisk sales of self-defense and concealed carry firearms,” Justin Anderson, marketing director for Hyatt Guns, told Seeking Alpha earlier this month. “We’re also continuing to see new gun buyers. People are nervous about their safety, and rightly so. It’s a dangerous world we live in and American citizens know that we’re not immune to terrorist attacks. They’re taking the necessary steps to defend themselves.”

 

Read More

 


source: http://www.guns.com/2017/06/19/gun-stocks-rise-after-congressional-shooting/

  • pics fixer

    Here is a perfect example where a background check would have kept that man from getting a legal gun. He was officially known for domestic violence and a BG check would have shown that. Even the excuse that if everyone on that field were armed and shot back won’t work here because he fired first from a covered position. All that would have done is put a very large amount of bullets in the air and only heaven knows how many innocent people would have been harmed a mile from there. BG checks is just prudent.

    Before anyone gets their pin feathers all puffed up, I’m an archer [a good one] and a shooter though I don’t have a gun in the house. Also, I have no problem with any responsible and trained person having a weapon in the home. On top of that, I am something of a liberal however on some things I’m to the right of Attila the Hun and yet my wits are quite well lit.

    The 2nd Amendment does make it clear that the right to own a gun is NOT absolutely never to be abridged. It actually gives reason why you can have a gun and why. There are some people who should NEVER, EVER own a gun. That man who fired on our elected representative is a very perfect example of that and something should be done to make it difficult if not impossible for people like that to own one. Imagine him as a neighbor and he objects to the way you park your car.

    • mikeinappalachia

      Except that the shooter bought the firearm that was used legally and with a background check and your somewhat incorrect description of the 2nd Amendment, a pretty reasonable comment.

      • pics fixer

        I’m not incorrect about the 2nd Amendment. There are conditions on the right to own a gun. Meet those conditions and your right is unabridged. If you could not set conditions then places like NYC and other big cities could not set conditions on gun ownership or even what type of weapon you can own. The biggest, meanest thing that you could mount on your SUV should be OK.

        How the gun laws are so ‘all over the place’ is a mystery to me. It’s like saying “Money is equal to free speech.” or that “Corporations are people.”. Silly, huh? There are limits and the constitution allows those limits.

        Our founders didn’t want our country to have a standing army. The idea was that if you are called to service, you grab your gun and bullet mold and run town to an assembly point and serve. That was in the 1700’s. I dare say that things are just a bit different now. We do have a standing and well equipped army. Who knew??