[Unknown Target]

Of course there's a difference. The difference is that one can kill, and the other can't. Don't you think that's kind of a big difference? Don't you think that's something you would have to look at? Considering that crime statistics would most likely be much higher with a gun that actually can cause harm than ones who can't? Sure, the guns look real and can be bandied about as a real weapon, but at the end of the day, that BB that hit Kal's mom in the head couldn't have come from an airsoft gun, which are being banned just the same.

Kind of stupid and backwards, don't you think?



And you said it yourself - they're making a replica ban as well, which is just retarded. now you can't have a replica gun? That would include guns that don't even shoot, mind you. They're making that bill assuming that everyone who has a replica gun is just waiting to run out into the street and pretend it's real.

[General Freak]

I think some days ago an actor playing a pirate took out a prop gun from his car (from a play). He got reported by the neighbour and moments later armed policemen stormed his house. It was partly the neighbour's fault, but the reaction went way overboard. I don't actually have strong opinions about the banning of airsoft guns (are those like BB guns?) but I think the government is tackling the syptoms rather than the disease. Basically, don't ban airsoft guns because they are potentionally harmful, but make sure that people are brought up knowing how to act sensibly. Easier said than done, but in the long-term, it will work for the better.

[Unknown Target]

Airsoft guns are in no way potentially harmful. They shoot plastic BBs at relatively low velocities, and are incapable of puncturing flesh.
The only way they could be harmful is because they look real, hence, they could be mistaken for a real gun. But the only people who would use this to their advantage (i.e. criminals) A) Deserve what they get, and B) if they were desperate enough, could simply get a real gun, instead of an airsoft gun. It's just the latter is easier to obtain.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Of course there's a difference. The difference is that one can kill, and the other can't. Don't you think that's kind of a big difference? Don't you think that's something you would have to look at? Considering that crime statistics would most likely be much higher with a gun that actually can cause harm than ones who can't? Sure, the guns look real and can be bandied about as a real weapon, but at the end of the day, that BB that hit Kal's mom in the head couldn't have come from an airsoft gun, which are being banned just the same.

Kind of stupid and backwards, don't you think?

That's why one (airsoft) is classed - legally - as a toy and the other not.  And not mentioned in aforementioned ban articles (it'd be classed under replica).

So the difference is already observed & classed by law (see below).

Originally posted by Unknown Target

And you said it yourself - they're making a replica ban as well, which is just retarded. now you can't have a replica gun? That would include guns that don't even shoot, mind you. They're making that bill assuming that everyone who has a replica gun is just waiting to run out into the street and pretend it's real.

Actually, it's a bill under the assumption that criminals can buy a replica - even an unconvertable one - and use it for the purposes of comitting armed robbery.  I'm not necessarily for this ban, but my reasons for being against it would be on the basis of the possible precedent, not the content of the actual legislation.

You have to understand that the use of replica weapons for intimidation, etc, in comitting a crime is more likely over here than it is in the US (because there it's piss easy to grab a real gun).

Albeit; airsoft/BB guns can, in exceptional circumstances, cause serious injury such as blinding or maiming.  A 6-year old killed after being shot through the eye with a bb gun, for example.  (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/5/1357)

[Unknown Target]

Ok...but guess what that six year old was killed by? An air rifle was it not? NOT an airsoft gun? You keep saying the same things over and over again, but the facts aren't changing - the worst an airsoft gun can do is blind you, and guess what? A rock can do that too.
And airsoft guns ARE classed under the ban, they would be classed under replicas and, hence, would be banned as well.

True, an airsoft gun can be used as intimidation in a robbery, but oh well. Are you going to ban a toy gun because of what it IS capable of doing?
Oh wait, I forgot, this is Britain. You're placing restrictions on kitchen knives because they MAY be able to kill someone, rather than being used for their original purpose: cooking. You're banning airsoft guns because they "could" be used for robbery, and you're banning kitchen knives because they "could" be used to kill someone. You're letting the smaller statistic outweigh the larger one: if airsoft guns were, say, 60% of them were used for robbery, and 40% of them were used for their actual purpose,  (of playing), then sure, I would support a ban. But instead it's probably more like 99% of all airsoft guns sold are used as directed, and 1% are used for robberies. Just like kitchen knives. But you're banning both of them based on what a small section of the population does.

[aldo_14]

The report refers to the/a 6 year old being killed by an air-powered pistol firing round BB pellets (I suggest you look at the link).  That was simply a minor nitpick; you should have noted I quantified it with 'expcetional circumstances' and a US report on injuries from air-powered weapons including - but not limited to - bb guns, which I understand are classed as airsoft.

Firstly, kitchen knives are not being banned.  It was suggested, IIRC by the BMA, but the police and government declined to support it (for one thing, it's unenforceable).  It's not a fair analogy to compare kitchen knives to replicas anyways; kitchen knives can be said to have a useful purpose for one thing (the only reason it was proposed as legislation was the statements of chefs saying those types of knife were not useful for cooking).

 If you were to remove replica guns completely from regular life, there would be no real impact IMO; the arguement AFAIK against it tends to be the issue of enforcement and the impact it would pose upon civil liberties in doing so.

Arguably, though, sometime the smaller statistic should outweigh the larger one, if that smaller statistic involves human lives. If one person dies from an airgun - to use a generalisation - then is that life worth less than not legislating.  Likewise weighing the people carrying replicas who are shot by SO19 against the people who aren't using them for criminal purposes (I can't help but wonder how many adults have toy guns for legit purposes would be affected - particularly noting the exemptions in the proposed legislation for reanactments and whatnot).

And I'd point out that it's illegal to throw a rock at someone anyways.  The difference is that a) rocks occur naturally and b) rocks aren't 'designed' as weapons.

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
However, it also notes how one person in the UK was shot when a wooden chair leg was mistaken for a real weapon (I think it said around 91 or 93). BAN ALL CHAIR LEGS!
Geeze, you Brits are turning into a paranoid lot.

That was not the police's fault. The guy who was killed was a Scot. He went into a pub in London with the chair leg in a bag, and some cretinous fool heard him talking, and somehow thought he was Irish. He then jumped to the conclusion that the guy must be a terrorist, and therefore must be carrying a gun. So he called the cops, who understandably sent an ARU to arrest him. The Scottish guy, on leaving the pub, was shot by one of the ARU team. As far as I'm aware, the officer in question was later charged with manslaughter or something similar...

I see no reason why airsoft/BB guns should have to look anything like a real gun. There was a feature about it on the local news last week, where the Armourer for the South Wales Police (based in my town, by the way) had a real M4 assault rifle, and a BB-firing replica of the same. He asked the reporter to tell the difference, and he couldn't. Down to the smallest details, they were almost identical. The same thing happened with a MP5 submachine gun, and a Glock 9mm pistol.

There is no reason why BB guns should look like real weapons. Do paintball guns look like real weapons? No. Airsoft weapons should be built to look significantly different, and then there would be no problems, as a BB gun could not be mistaken for an actual firearm. This would mean that they couldn't be used for committing crimes, and fewer people would get shot by the police (if they think the person has a real weapon, they will open fire if any threatening movement is made towards them. Waving something that looks like a handgun around could well be seen as a threatening action. Waving something that is obviously not a deadly weapon will probably not).

[Unknown Target]

The whole point of airsoft guns are the "tactical simulation" aspect of a realstic looking gun. That is the appeal, and that is the whole reason they exist. Paintball guns are designed for different gameplay and different uses.

If you were to remove replica guns completely from regular life, there would be no real impact IMO; the arguement AFAIK against it tends to be the issue of enforcement and the impact it would pose upon civil liberties in doing so.

If it would have no major impact, then why must you remove them and make those who do use them for their proper purpose suffer?

Arguably, though, sometime the smaller statistic should outweigh the larger one, if that smaller statistic involves human lives. If one person dies from an airgun - to use a generalisation - then is that life worth less than not legislating.

But you can't die from an airsoft gun. What don't you understand? If you don't believe me, go to a skirmish and get shot. If you even bleed I'll pay you twenty bucks.

Likewise weighing the people carrying replicas who are shot by SO19 against the people who aren't using them for criminal purposes (I can't help but wonder how many adults have toy guns for legit purposes would be affected - particularly noting the exemptions in the proposed legislation for reanactments and whatnot).

What?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
The whole point of airsoft guns are the "tactical simulation" aspect of a realstic looking gun. That is the appeal, and that is the whole reason they exist. Paintball guns are designed for different gameplay and different uses.

Hence why they would be banned/controlled as replica firearms, due to the potential for intimidation and misidentification (ranging by members of the public up to  trained police firearms units).

I'm not sure why a gun has to be realistic looking to be useful in 'tactical simulation', rather than be clearly marked.

Originally posted by Unknown Target
If it would have no major impact, then why must you remove them and make those who do use them for their proper purpose suffer?

Sorry; negative impact.  I doubt the absence of being as able to easily play soldiers is really suffering; particularly given that exemptions will be made in the legislation with regard to these uses.  I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I've pointed out that there are exemptions in the proposed legislation which affect this use.

What exactly is the proper purpose of an air weapon?  To shoot other people in a controlled environment (i.e. to avoid the potential of even minimal injury to bystanders)? How does that conflict with bans/controls upon realistic looking weapons in a public situation?

Originally posted by Unknown Target
But you can't die from an airsoft gun. What don't you understand? If you don't believe me, go to a skirmish and get shot. If you even bleed I'll pay you twenty bucks.

I just quoted a medical report stating exactly that.  You want to argue about that specific example case, go talk to the authors of said report.

Originally posted by Unknown Target

What?

The benefit of removing replica firearms is the reduction of life lost due to police shootings (regardless of justification in circumstances), crime due to use of them for intimidatory purpose (and also including use of converted replicas in general), weighed against the societal loss of their removal.

And noting - for what I believe is the 5th time - that the ban is not proposed as a blanket ban.  If you read the BBC report you linked to originally, it states this; low powered air weapons are not illegalised (but can be confiscated if carried in a public place for no good reason), you are allowed to keep replica weapons for use in re-enactments or plays, and that officers would have discretion over arresting for carrying replicas (specifically mentioning that, for example, children playing in the street is a different case than an adult waving a replica weapon).

(Ignoring completely one of the secondary arguements commonly against replica or toy guns in general, namely that they allow young children to gain interest in 'gun culture').

[Unknown Target]

Hence why they would be banned/controlled as replica firearms, due to the potential for intimidation and misidentification (ranging by members of the public up to trained police firearms units).

I'm not sure why a gun has to be realistic looking to be useful in 'tactical simulation', rather than be clearly marked.

Even the police use airsoft guns for "tactical simulation". It's a more realistic edge. Granted, it's not necessary, but in the very great majority of instance, it is not a problem.

Sorry; negative impact. I doubt the absence of being as able to easily play soldiers is really suffering; particularly given that exemptions will be made in the legislation with regard to these uses. I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I've pointed out that there are exemptions in the proposed legislation which affect this use.

Read below.

What exactly is the proper purpose of an air weapon? To shoot other people in a controlled environment (i.e. to avoid the potential of even minimal injury to bystanders)? How does that conflict with bans/controls upon realistic looking weapons in a public situation?

The problem is what they can define as a public place - i.e. almost anything outside of a strictly organized club. Now, organized clubs are fun, healthy, and safe, however, may people aren't near them. They often play in their back yards or in the woods near them, and have never caused problems. Most players are responsible, respect the laws, etc. Yet under this new legislation, they would be banned from doing something that harms no one. 99% of airsoft players have no intention of using their guns for wrong doing, but under this legislation, it's now illegal to use guns in public places (again, can be defined as anything) or sell or manufacture them - i.e. eventually the guns that people already have will break, and there will be no more. And since you can't buy any anymore, airsoft will be dead.

I just quoted a medical report stating exactly that. You want to argue about that specific example case, go talk to the authors of said report.

At the age the child was killed at, his skull bones are so undeveloped you could probably push your finger through them.

And noting - for what I believe is the 5th time - that the ban is not proposed as a blanket ban. If you read the BBC report you linked to originally, it states this; low powered air weapons are not illegalised (but can be confiscated if carried in a public place for no good reason), you are allowed to keep replica weapons for use in re-enactments or plays, and that officers would have discretion over arresting for carrying replicas (specifically mentioning that, for example, children playing in the street is a different case than an adult waving a replica weapon).

That ban is only part of the threat to airsoft, the larger threat is the ban to replica weapons. Also, once again, read my previous point: what counts as a public place? Unless someone literally buys an acre of land and specifically dedicates it to airsoft, that could mean that pretty much every place in Britian with the exception of privately owned land (which you couldn't play on, unless the person who owned it consented), or people's houses, is unplayable.
And yea, you get to keep replica weapons for plays or re-enactments, but what about simple skirmishing for fun? Apparantly you can't keep them for that.

(Ignoring completely one of the secondary arguements commonly against replica or toy guns in general, namely that they allow young children to gain interest in 'gun culture').

Oh boo hoo. The innocent children are exposed to violence. Like they don't see it when tehy walk out on the streets.




Here's my question: is airsoft such a dangerous threat to you, your children, and your family, so that it must be banned? Is the risk that someone may take up a fake gun and threaten you with it so great that you have to ban them? Hell, you could probably get a real gun for just a little bit more effort.

Do you feel that your personal life is at stake, aldo_14, because people are allowed to own and play with realistic looking airguns that literally can not kill you?
I said you for a reason, you are an adult, I'm assuming. Your skull is fully hardened, unlike that child's. So let me extend that question further. If you ever have a child (if you don't have one now), are you afraid that someone will break into your home, threaten you with a fake gun, and shoot your baby in the head with said fake gun?

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Unknown Target


Even the police use airsoft guns for "tactical simulation". It's a more realistic edge. Granted, it's not necessary, but in the very great majority of instance, it is not a problem.

Then get them clearly marked and clear up 90% of the problem

SNIP

That ban is only part of the threat to airsoft, the larger threat is the ban to replica weapons. Also, once again, read my previous point: what counts as a public place? Unless someone literally buys an acre of land and specifically dedicates it to airsoft, that could mean that pretty much every place in Britian with the exception of privately owned land (which you couldn't play on, unless the person who owned it consented), or people's houses, is unplayable.
And yea, you get to keep replica weapons for plays or re-enactments, but what about simple skirmishing for fun? Apparantly you can't keep them for that.
[/b]

As stated before, why do you need an exact copy of a gun so you can shoot someone with a plastic round? A bright pink gun might be a bit hard to cammo, but then take something clearly not a real gun. For instance, change the shape, or paint "REPLICA" all over the side.

Oh boo hoo. The innocent children are exposed to violence. Like they don't see it when tehy walk out on the streets.

[/b]

[ hyperbole ]
Oh, and therefore, every child beyond the ago of 12 should get weapons training?
[/  hyperbole ]
Seriously, just because kids might be exposed to violence on TV, doesn't mean they should get more acces to gun-like things.

Here's my question: is airsoft such a dangerous threat to you, your children, and your family, so that it must be banned? Is the risk that someone may take up a fake gun and threaten you with it so great that you have to ban them? Hell, you could probably get a real gun for just a little bit more effort.

[/b]

In a country such as the Netherlands, and, from what I've heard, the UK, it is NOT easy to get a real firearm. Over here, you need to be a member of a special club for over a year, a full psych check, a special license from both the city council and the police. Even then you aren't allowed to carry ammo home, unless you get even more licenses. And even with those, there are limits to how much one can keep.

Do you feel that your personal life is at stake, aldo_14, because people are allowed to own and play with realistic looking airguns that literally can not kill you?
I said you for a reason, you are an adult, I'm assuming. Your skull is fully hardened, unlike that child's. So let me extend that question further. If you ever have a child (if you don't have one now), are you afraid that someone will break into your home, threaten you with a fake gun, and shoot your baby in the head with said fake gun? [/B]

Ignoring the ad-hominem stuff in the above, which, to me, is not in order in a proper debate:
Yes, I do feel that there is a thread of some idiot grabbing an airsoft gun, and using it to threaten me. It can be used in robberies, or in a hostage situation. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't ask a robber to prove is gun is real before handing over my wallet.

Mark the guns clearly, and I'm fine with them, as long as you don't use them on someone elses property, and don't disturb nature/public life by playing.
Make the guns look as real as possible, which allows them to be used in crime, and I think they should fall under the weapon-laws.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by kasperl

As stated before, why do you need an exact copy of a gun so you can shoot someone with a plastic round? A bright pink gun might be a bit hard to cammo, but then take something clearly not a real gun. For instance, change the shape, or paint "REPLICA" all over the side.

Sure. You could do what we Americans do and require bright orange muzzles on all replica weapons. Sure, you can scratch it off, but then you're breaking the law and your gun can justifiably be taken away from you.

[ hyperbole ]
Oh, and therefore, every child beyond the ago of 12 should get weapons training?
[/  hyperbole ]
Seriously, just because kids might be exposed to violence on TV, doesn't mean they should get more acces to gun-like things.

Alright, that may be true. I agree, kids under 12 shouldn't be running around with realistic looking guns. Maybe put in an age limit...I think 13 is good enough. Oh wait, that's what the current limit already is.

In a country such as the Netherlands, and, from what I've heard, the UK, it is NOT easy to get a real firearm. Over here, you need to be a member of a special club for over a year, a full psych check, a special license from both the city council and the police. Even then you aren't allowed to carry ammo home, unless you get even more licenses. And even with those, there are limits to how much one can keep.

Just because it's harder, doesn't mean it's impossible. I'll concede that point. However, if you think about it - if it's harder to get guns in those countries, then why are there still so many armed robberies? It's possible to get guns without going through legal channels, you know. The majority of people who actually do go through channels don't use their guns for robberies and crimes, because A) They obviously don't want to break the law, because they went through all the trouble to legally possess a gun, and B) the guns can be tracked back to them.
Now, I'm not a gun nut, I don't really care about the laws governing real guns. The less real guns we have on the street, the better. All I care about is the banning of airsoft guns, which for the majority have done little if any harm.

Ignoring the ad-hominem stuff in the above, which, to me, is not in order in a proper debate:
Yes, I do feel that there is a thread of some idiot grabbing an airsoft gun, and using it to threaten me. It can be used in robberies, or in a hostage situation. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't ask a robber to prove is gun is real before handing over my wallet.

I wouldn't ask that either. But why ban airsoft guns because the robbers guns may or may not be fake? If the robbers are serious, they could have just as well stolen a real gun and used that instead. The reason they want airsoft guns banned is because in 1 out of 1,000 cases, someone stupid does something bad with them.

Mark the guns clearly, and I'm fine with them, as long as you don't use them on someone elses property, and don't disturb nature/public life by playing.

I agree. Require neon orange muzzles like Americans do.

Make the guns look as real as possible, which allows them to be used in crime, and I think they should fall under the weapon-laws.

I disagree, considering they are not techincally weapons (i.e. they can't kill - that one specific and only example excepted).

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Unknown Target


Sure. You could do what we Americans do and require bright orange muzzles on all replica weapons. Sure, you can scratch it off, but then you're breaking the law and your gun can justifiably be taken away from you.

I'd go for then just a muzzle, and a molded text on the gun all over its length. But, same diff.

Alright, that may be true. I agree, kids under 12 shouldn't be running around with realistic looking guns. Maybe put in an age limit...I think 13 is good enough. Oh wait, that's what the current limit already is.

I wasn't actually using the age of 12 as any point of reference, just a quick jab. Ideally, things that look and feel like real guns, and are made to do so, shouldn't be allowed everywhere.

Just because it's harder, doesn't mean it's impossible. I'll concede that point. However, if you think about it - if it's harder to get guns in those countries, then why are there still so many armed robberies? It's possible to get guns without going through legal channels, you know. The majority of people who actually do go through channels don't use their guns for robberies and crimes, because A) They obviously don't want to break the law, because they went through all the trouble to legally possess a gun, and B) the guns can be tracked back to them.
Now, I'm not a gun nut, I don't really care about the laws governing real guns. The less real guns we have on the street, the better. All I care about is the banning of airsoft guns, which for the majority have done little if any harm.

But, as you said, a real gun carries a higher penalty. I'll give a quick example.

Thug A wants a new iPod, so he goes looking about for people wearing white headphones.  Now, he has a few options:
- Borrow or steal a real gun. Hard to get at, and if gets caught with even the weapon, he'll go to jail in most countries. If he actually gets caught robbing someone, he will definately see jail, for robbery and threathening with a lethal weapon

- Go to the shed, and grab is old airsoft gun. It's legal to carry around, so it doesn't matter if he does get caught with the gun. If he gets caught with the robbery, he'll go in for robbery only, most likely.

Now, stupid rich kid B is walking around wearing is white earphones for status, carrying an iPod with some awfull music on it. He sees the thug, and is told to and over the gadget or get shot. The kid is scared, rightiously so, wheter the thug is carrying an airsoft or a real gun. As you said yourself, hard to tell the difference. Now, the thug will get the iPod nomatter the gun he is carrying, since the poor kid can't see he isn't in danger.  As mentioned above, the risk for the thug is lower, but the gains are the same.
Therefore, the airsoft option is much more advantagous for the criminal.

And if you want to bring up the point of knifes, they are also classified lethal weapons, even though they are easier to attain. So the harder punishment argument still applies, and carrying a knife is illegal in most downtown areas here.

I wouldn't ask that either. But why ban airsoft guns because the robbers guns may or may not be fake? If the robbers are serious, they could have just as well stolen a real gun and used that instead. The reason they want airsoft guns banned is because in 1 out of 1,000 cases, someone stupid does something bad with them.

See the above for part of the point, but to elaborate, an airsoft gun is MUCH, MUCH easier to attain then a regular gun. The psychological limit is also a lot lower.

I disagree, considering they are not techincally weapons (i.e. they can't kill - that one specific and only example excepted).

They can still be used to threathen someone with death. The threath is just as valid if the person threathened thinks he might be killed, even if it is not a true possibility.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by kasperl

I'd go for then just a muzzle, and a molded text on the gun all over its length. But, same diff.

Sure, have that too. The US also doesn't allow trademarks on airsoft guns.

Thug A wants a new iPod, so he goes looking about for people wearing white headphones.  Now, he has a few options:
- Borrow or steal a real gun. Hard to get at, and if gets caught with even the weapon, he'll go to jail in most countries. If he actually gets caught robbing someone, he will definately see jail, for robbery and threathening with a lethal weapon

- Go to the shed, and grab is old airsoft gun. It's legal to carry around, so it doesn't matter if he does get caught with the gun. If he gets caught with the robbery, he'll go in for robbery only, most likely.

Now, stupid rich kid B is walking around wearing is white earphones for status, carrying an iPod with some awfull music on it. He sees the thug, and is told to and over the gadget or get shot. The kid is scared, rightiously so, wheter the thug is carrying an airsoft or a real gun. As you said yourself, hard to tell the difference. Now, the thug will get the iPod nomatter the gun he is carrying, since the poor kid can't see he isn't in danger.  As mentioned above, the risk for the thug is lower, but the gains are the same.
Therefore, the airsoft option is much more advantagous for the criminal.

This is a good example, but once again I'd like to reiterate that this is a very low percentage of the population. My point is also augmented below the next quote.

And if you want to bring up the point of knifes, they are also classified lethal weapons, even though they are easier to attain. So the harder punishment argument still applies, and carrying a knife is illegal in most downtown areas here.

Alright, but the chance of that thug carrying a steak knife, is just about as equal. By your same logic, we should ban steak knives because the thug, rather than getting a combat knife or a switchblade (basically any sharpened weapon that is expressly designed to kill), he can just go home and get a kitchen knife.
So we should ban steak knives too.

See the above for part of the point, but to elaborate, an airsoft gun is MUCH, MUCH easier to attain then a regular gun. The psychological limit is also a lot lower.

Yes, they are easier to obtain, but that doesn't mean that they are lethal. Restrictions that make them easily identifieble as a fake gun (such as an orange muzzle, no trademarks, maybe REPLICA stamped across the side), should be implimented, not a total outright ban on all replicas.

They can still be used to threathen someone with death. The threath is just as valid if the person threathened thinks he might be killed, even if it is not a true possibility.

True, but I can threaten you with being shot if I put my finger in my coat and pointed it at you.




My point is, this replica ban is an overreaction. Sure, place restrictions on the weapons: minimum age, visual differences between them and the real gun, etc, but an overprotective ban on all replica guns is hurting more responsible people than it is irresponsible people.

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Unknown Target

This is a good example, but once again I'd like to reiterate that this is a very low percentage of the population. My point is also augmented below the next quote.

May I point out that any criminal activity, accept mabey speeding, is only commited by a small percentage of the population?

Alright, but the chance of that thug carrying a steak knife, is just about as equal. By your same logic, we should ban steak knives because the thug, rather than getting a combat knife or a switchblade (basically any sharpened weapon that is expressly designed to kill), he can just go home and get a kitchen knife.
So we should ban steak knives too.

I didn't say ban, but I did say that things should be limited. Also, carrying a steak knife in public is indeed illegal.
 

Yes, they are easier to obtain, but that doesn't mean that they are lethal. Restrictions that make them easily identifieble as a fake gun (such as an orange muzzle, no trademarks, maybe REPLICA stamped across the side), should be implimented, not a total outright ban on all replicas.

For the lethal point, see below.
I'm against a total ban on all replicas, but there truly should be regulation, and quite a bit of it.

True, but I can threaten you with being shot if I put my finger in my coat and pointed it at you.

But a replica is a much more convincing threat. If someone comes at you, waving a gun, would you be able to tell the difference before he pulled the trigger?  

My point is, this replica ban is an overreaction. Sure, place restrictions on the weapons: minimum age, visual differences between them and the real gun, etc, but an overprotective ban on all replica guns is hurting more responsible people than it is irresponsible people.

All out banning might be too tough indeed, but there should definately be an awfull lot of regulation.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by kasperl
May I point out that any criminal activity, accept mabey speeding, is only commited by a small percentage of the population?

Yes, and crimes with airsoft guns are commited by an even smaller percentage of that. Just because (let's say for the sake of argument, because I can't think of anything else off the top of my head), that the speeding you mentioned is actually committed by a small part of the population. That doesn't mean that we go and put 60 mph limiters on all the cars, now does it?

I didn't say ban, but I did say that things should be limited. Also, carrying a steak knife in public is indeed illegal.

I agree, they should be limited, but not outright banned like is being done so.

All out banning might be too tough indeed, but there should definately be an awfull lot of regulation.

Alright, so let's compromise. All replica guns must be clearly marked as such. No trademarks should be allowed, and all guns should have a bright orange muzzle/flash hider. Also, "REPLICA" should be stamped onto the side of each gun. Raise the legal age limit up a year to 14, or maybe 15 if you're that adamant about it.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target


Even the police use airsoft guns for "tactical simulation". It's a more realistic edge. Granted, it's not necessary, but in the very great majority of instance, it is not a problem.

And the army use modified for safety (in certain cases) weapons for their training.  But the reason they would use those deriviatives for actual training, is because they are training to use real weapons equivalent in shape, etc, to the replica.  And also because they kind of have training in responsible use of any type of weapons.

Originally posted by Unknown Target


The problem is what they can define as a public place - i.e. almost anything outside of a strictly organized club. Now, organized clubs are fun, healthy, and safe, however, may people aren't near them. They often play in their back yards or in the woods near them, and have never caused problems. Most players are responsible, respect the laws, etc. Yet under this new legislation, they would be banned from doing something that harms no one. 99% of airsoft players have no intention of using their guns for wrong doing, but under this legislation, it's now illegal to use guns in public places (again, can be defined as anything) or sell or manufacture them - i.e. eventually the guns that people already have will break, and there will be no more. And since you can't buy any anymore, airsoft will be dead.

Well, whether or not airsoft dies is not a concern in terms of asessing the social benefits of legislation; if it was deemed - and I recognise this is the debate - that airsoft guns would be included as part of an outright ban (which is not the current legislation), then that wouldn't be a problem as the weapons would be illegal.

A public space is usually defined as an area, simply enough, where other people are and thus can be considered at risk.  Again note that police officers can use their discretion for this purpose.

Originally posted by Unknown Target

At the age the child was killed at, his skull bones are so undeveloped you could probably push your finger through them.

Actually, it was penetration of the cornea IIRC (I'm pretty sure it states that specifically).  Protection of youngsters is probably a key consideration; it's the tendency of law and IMO society to protect the young above all other age groups.  If there is the physical possibility of a young child being killed, then that has to factor into any reasoning.

Originally posted by Unknown Target

That ban is only part of the threat to airsoft, the larger threat is the ban to replica weapons. Also, once again, read my previous point: what counts as a public place? Unless someone literally buys an acre of land and specifically dedicates it to airsoft, that could mean that pretty much every place in Britian with the exception of privately owned land (which you couldn't play on, unless the person who owned it consented), or people's houses, is unplayable.
And yea, you get to keep replica weapons for plays or re-enactments, but what about simple skirmishing for fun? Apparantly you can't keep them for that.

Public Place
Any public park, garden, sea, beach, railway station, and any ground to which the public have or permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.

'Simple skirmishing' is again defined within the police officers scope for leeway when evaluating the situation and deciding if action is required.  And again I'd note that AFAIK the legislation still retains the 'toy' classification for airsoft guns under a certain muzzle velocity.

Originally posted by Unknown Target

Oh boo hoo. The innocent children are exposed to violence. Like they don't see it when tehy walk out on the streets.

Actually, it's gaining comfort and familiarity with the imagined use of weapons, combined with the lack of visible consequences to the 'use' of them.  IIRC the psychological arguement is that playing with toy guns means that young children learn to 'enjoy' guns, but do not understand the consequences of their real-life use.  As I said, this is a seperate arguement and somewhat unrelated to the social issues behind the idea of banning replica firearms.  

'Seeing violence' is handled by age restrictions upon the media; albeit in my experience actual violence is very rarely seen in the sort of situations where an impressionable child would be.  At least as far as the UK goes.

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Here's my question: is airsoft such a dangerous threat to you, your children, and your family, so that it must be banned? Is the risk that someone may take up a fake gun and threaten you with it so great that you have to ban them? Hell, you could probably get a real gun for just a little bit more effort.

Do you feel that your personal life is at stake, aldo_14, because people are allowed to own and play with realistic looking airguns that literally can not kill you?
I said you for a reason, you are an adult, I'm assuming. Your skull is fully hardened, unlike that child's. So let me extend that question further. If you ever have a child (if you don't have one now), are you afraid that someone will break into your home, threaten you with a fake gun, and shoot your baby in the head with said fake gun?

Airsoft is not per se a threat to me due to my social conditions and living.  Were I to live within an inner-city or 'lower class' area - where casual attacks by the likes of airguns and indeed airsoft guns are more likely - I would view it as a possible threat and at the very least a nuscience.  Were I to have a child in such an environment, then that would be magnified.

I don't believe that there is a problem with removing realistic looking toy guns. I don't believe there is a significantly large culture of people using these types of weapons - especially those classed as toys - who are interested in using them for the 'tactical simulation' you describe.  I do not believe there is a requirement for realistic looking weapons in that case, regardless.

In the situation of where I would be living at home, the fear of being robbed and threatened by a fake gun would not be a concern unless i was in a very dangerous area.  This is simply due to the nature of burglary; in my understanding the vast majority occur when people are out, and the burglar is more likely to flee than confront.

I would say that the risk of an attempted armed robbery upon a bank, betting shop, and soforth by individuals using replica firearms would be a concern, as much as any crime is.  By reducing or regulating replicas, that would reduce that risk.  Provided it does not have an impact upon civil liberties with respect to the enforcement, I don't object.

In summary, I see no damage to the fabric of life by removing replica weapons; they serve no purpose that is useful, with the singular exception of play, and in that case they can be easily replaced with weapons that are clearly marked as being non-lethal.  They are not a significant threat to me - being that I live in a middle-class estate in the suburbs - but they are at least a minor threat and disturbance to other people in different areas or demographic groupings, and have no real benefit.

[Unknown Target]

Aldo, can we just compromise? Neither of us are going to back down, and I'm getting tired of the banter.

Can we agree that yes, the guns should be legislated more severely, but not outright banned? I get what I want: airsoft guns to remain legal, you get what you want: strict controls on the guns.


EDIT: But do not assume that this means I do not have a rebute. I'm just tired of endless debates where neither side is willing to back down. Therefore, I am offering a compromise.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Aldo, can we just compromise? Neither of us are going to back down, and I'm getting tired of the banter.

Can we agree that yes, the guns should be legislated more severely, but not outright banned? I get what I want: airsoft guns to remain legal, you get what you want: strict controls on the guns.


EDIT: But do not assume that this means I do not have a rebute. I'm just tired of endless debates where neither side is willing to back down. Therefore, I am offering a compromise.

Fair enough.

My position is, that I have no object to either a total ban, a partial ban or regulation (i.e. whereby airsoft is treated effectively as a toy - and I'm sure this is already explicit in what was proposed), or even to the status quo, but I understand the reasons behind a ban.

[Clave]

Right now, I miss my 7.62mm semi-automatic rifle, and LMG with bipod and big curved magazine...