Well-armed man shoots straight on gun debate

I shoot rifles, semi-auto pistols, revolvers, and more rarely shotguns and have more than I need of each category of the firearms listed. That should make my political position predictable. I have also competed in pistol sports and have paid out of pocket for many classes to improve my ability as a shooter. I have shot thousands of rounds of ammo, both for recreation and in shooting competitions.

I hope to sort my thoughts out about firearms beyond no-thought name calling. A little less heat and a little more light is my purpose. The topic is too important for slogans.

There is a good connection to the gun debate in the study of death rates for supersport motorcycles.  The street motorcycle in the last 20 years has reached a new level of performance unlike anything imagined. Agility, 0 to 100 acceleration and top speeds are available at prices that now cost several thousands of dollars. In motorcycle performance we are living in the "good ol' days."

In some ways license to drive regulations have not caught up with the performance of vehicles like supersport motorcycles in the way aircraft pilot licensing has. A pilot earns ratings for different aircraft and one of the rating parameters has to do with complexity and speed —  a single-engine rating first and later a twin-engine rating if the pilot qualifies.

Where gun foes err

For anti-gun people a license to possess firearms seems like a natural extension of the license to drive — or better, the license to fly.  The problem is at the same time these anti-gun people will also post on Facebook, and in interviews and opinion columns their admiration for Australia or Britain as role models for gun control. They kill their own idea in infancy by doing so. Most gun owners look at the path of both those countries as the nightmare.

Those countries started with registration and then moved to confiscation of those very firearms. The photos of stacks of firearms crushed in those countries, many high quality and sometimes rare historical firearms, some passed down through a family for generations, is a good reason for gun owners to refuse to even bring up the topic.

The anti-gun people are seen as poor liars for saying "let's at least register firearms" while also advocating a total win for their position with the destruction of personal firearms belonging to the owners. Compensation is rightfully seen as an insult, as though a point of personal or constitutional values can have a price tag.

What gun owners often say about the modern semi-auto rifle based on military models is that those sold to the public in the United States are not a military assault rifles because they lack an auto switch, which allows a squeeze of the trigger to fire more than one shot. In many military-issue rifles this is often divided into a burst of about 3 rounds for each squeeze of the trigger, or full auto, which allows continuous fire until the shooter releases the trigger or the magazine is empty.

Anti-gun people are typically ignorant of these distinctions, and thus provide fodder for pro-gun advocates. Ignorant statements by gun foes are recorded and played over and over by pro-gun people for laughs — or more importantly, as cause to dismiss any arguments for gun control.

The anti-gun people are like someone trying to modify the rules for stock car racing without knowing how to drive a car, or changing the rules for pilots without knowing how to fly. That's also just lazy. If the issue is so important why do anti-gun people not even do a week's reading on firearms, their operation and safe handling? Is it asking too much for serious anti-gun people to have a basic knowledge of what they wish to regulate?

Where gun advocates err

Pro-gun people pitch a lot of bull as well. I read it because I am on their  side in many but not all respects. And just as a motor scooter is not equal to a Supersport motorcycle, not all firearms are created equal.

Pro-gun people fear that if they concede an inch on firearms distinctions, foes will soon be crushing all of our guns.

But I have to say I enjoyed an anti-gun video post of some crazy, angry guy shooting up his office with a musket. Fire a shot, pour powder into the empty barrel, start a patch, insert a lead ball, use a rod to tap it all down the barrel, place a percussion cap on, cock the hammer, shoulder the rifle and squeeze off a round. Then repeat. The only way this works, of course, is if all the potential victims run around but not too far so the carnage can continue. In this the anti-gun people have a point.

Gun foes argue that the modern military-style  rifles are the Supersport bikes of firearms technology. They would not be almost universal for militaries around the world if they were less than that. Pro-gun people often believe, or at least say, that without the auto switch their AR-style rifle is completely different than those used in combat. Check with combat veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq about current training doctrine and field use of the M-16 or M-4. Both the Marines and the Army train to use the semi-auto or one shot for every squeeze of the trigger. If asked how often the auto switch is used, their answer is that it is very rare. Why? Wasting ammo when you have no idea how long an engagement with the enemy will go is shortsighted. Auto, either burst or full, is a waste of a precious resource in combat.

Pro-gun people should know better than to keep hiding behind the false argument that not having an auto switch somehow makes the civilian AR completely different.

The military style semi-auto rifle is becoming the weapon of choice for mass murders, and that is simple to understand. Those rifles allow the fastest, most accurate shooting in the shortest amount of time and with the least amount of training. These rifles are also easier to shoot because they have almost no recoil. A more powerful rifle round with more recoil takes more skill to shoot rapidly and well. This is another reason why our military likes the AR.

I realize this is much longer than the typical Facebook pre-fab on guns. Look at it this way, if gun policy is so important maybe it deserves more time to read about and understand.

So anti-gun people, if you're serious about the gun debate become literate about the issue. Pro-gun people? There is a need to recognize some realities, for they are . . . real.

Paul Ongtooguk is Inupiat and graduated from high school in Nome and has also lived in Kotzebue, Fairbanks, Sitka and Barrow with several summers in Bethel. While he is a University of Alaska  professor with over 15 years of service in Anchorage, his opinion is his own and does necessarily not reflect the views of the University of Alaska or any campus or section of the system.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.