Front Cover Markham paper: Proposed Ban of Sale, Possession of replica firearms...

Originally Posted by Greylocks

There is only one solution, and that is not popular here at all; 18+ for EVERYTHING. For guns, supplies, games, and posting on forums.
Until then, reading is not blocked.

That, wether you guys like it or not, is the only solution that has a legal chance of working. We ALL enforce it, or the government will enforce it for us.

Criminals get access to real guns, regardless of existing laws and community self-policing. Likewise, anyone could get access to airsoft guns despite any community-imposed laws, OR government-imposed restrictions.

Politicians have been passing laws for generations that have nothing to do with addressing root cause, but to convey an appearance of action. How would regulating ourselves to exclude anyone under 18 contribute in any way to preventing the prevalence of irrational logic as applied by a politician seeking re-election? Those making these decisions are neither part of our community nor likely to ascede to anything we say in support of it, rather they see our sport as illegitimate and politically incorrect thus a legitimate target for the ban hammer.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of any action that places unneccessary restrictions on the population under the guise of preventing occurrences that are, generally, negligible when compared to real and present dangers. As stated by Lawdog in a previous thread:

Originally Posted by Lawdog

One of the central defining principals of a democracy is that the liberty of the citizen should only be curtailed where it is demonstrably justified.

Is there any demonstrable justification that banning replicas reduces crime? When used in an offence, airsoft guns (or a pointy gun-shaped stick for that matter) are classified as firearms for prosecution purposes. Has this fact deterred criminals from using them during the commission of an offence? Have existing gun laws prevented criminals from carrying, brandishing and discharging illegally-obtained unregistered guns that are transported illegally, stored unsafely and used outside the contraints of a lawfully-aquired ATT to commit MURDER?

What benefit would any further restrictions on replica weapons serve the general public, and at what expense to those who use them legally? The answer is none, but that's not the politically correct response that's more likely to be envoked by a city official.

A suggestion was also made to cover airsoft guns under the PAL/RPAL process and to classify guns as one or the other; why should innefective and ill-conceived rules that were designed as bandaid solutions to perceived problems be considered as acceptable measures to control access to TOYS?

Anyone who thinks that licensing in ANY form prevents crime should think twice, or perphaps make a donation to Wendy's gun control crusade.

[Blazen]

Everyone should read Droc (page 6) and Opea's (page 7) response. They make some excellent points.

Not to offend anyone, but I find it ironic that people will take the time to write out long "speeches" and expect their voice to be taken seriously when instead of consulting a dictionary they use (sp??) for simple words.

I responsibly own an AEG but must admit that politicians have a strong case in banning replica firearms.

In the eyes of the public, if airsoft is a sport, it should not matter if the guns used are replica firearms or clear plastic, the actions of the sport and its rules are not affected. We are what we are - grown men dressing up/role playing and pretending to be army men. Having a replica firearm helps in that fantasy - which unfortunately is not the strongest grounds for a defense.

Besides helping a few thousand Canadians roleplay, ownership of replica firearms to the public serves minimal positive aspects to the public.

On the topic of crimes with replica firearms, it takes a different kind of psychological state to obtain a real firearm and use it in a crime as opposed to obtaining a replica firearm and using it in a crime (I've worked with varying degrees of young offenders). Acquiring a real gun is a significant line to cross. I disagree with airsoft supporters that argue that banning replica guns will not help because then individuals will simply resort to real firearms. John Doe on a meth high won't be able to make a quick buck by picking up a toy gun and robbing a person/store. It will prevent some crimes. As the original article stated, if only one crime is prevented as a result of banning replica firearms, then the bylaw is a success.

If our base of arguement for keeping airsoft guns legal is that it does not truly negatively affect society, we will lose.
To have a chance of winning, we need a stronger arguement for the benefits of keeping replica firearms. Something besides the arguement "It's our right to own what we want".

Putting your finger in your pocket and telling someone you have a gun is considered a firearms offence. No replica required. Should fingers be banned because they can conceivable represent an actual firearm during the commission of an offence?

Focus on the individual, not the item. Why is this so hard to do when discussing firearms or firearm replicas? When someone is stabbed to death with a kitchen knife, we somehow immediately blame the assailant without screaming for blanket bans on kitchen tools. When a drunk driver kills someone with their car, we blame the driver, not the car.

Ok, I can envision the response already. "Cars and kitchen knifes arent deisgned with the intention of killing someone and therefore there's no reason to restrict them." Why then don't we see people calling for bans on hunting bows? Combat knives like Ka-bars? Samurai swords? Martial-arts weapons like bow staffs or three-prong sci's?

Why do we react differently when some idiot uses a toy gun in the commission of a crime? Just as the drunk driver is responsible for driving drunk, a criminal is responsible for pulling the trigger. Likewise, when a criminal brandishes a toy weapon to a police officer and winds up dead, we should not blame the availability of the toy or the officer's reaction. The criminal made a concious descision to put themselves at risk, and as such the criminal is directly responsible for the outcome.

There are millions of kitchen knives in households across the country, and somehow we're not wading through pools of blood on a daily basis. If someone uses one to commit assault or murder, it's somehow different. Why? Crime is crime, and criminals are responsible for criminality. The tools they choose to employ in the process are irrelevant!

Why do we believe, as a society, that by merely possessing a firearm, a lawful individual is an accident or a murder waiting to happen?

History has shown time and again that prohibiting access to conventional weapons does nothing to keep criminals from improvising. In medieval Japan, the population was prohibited from possessing swords on pein of instant death. As a result, the population learned to use common farm implements as defensive and offensive weapons. Defensive weapons were required to protect themselves from armed bandits who were already in contravention of the law and under a death sentance if caught. In for a penny, in for a pound; if you're going to die for being a criminal, you might as well carry a weapon anyway. In today's society, it's not about death but again, if you're going to get charged for murder (if caught), what does it matter if you use a gun or a knife? Your victim is still dead and you're going to jail either way, and your sentance is no longer due to the fact that you used a firearm during the offence.

Hell, forget about Japan. In Canadian and American prisons, criminals manufacture leathal weapons from the most unusual sources. They then use these improvised weapons to murder each other. Why? Because they're CRIMINALS. Possession of these weapons is already prohibited, but by virtue of being criminals, they DONT CARE.

If firearms are so dangerous as to deserve outright bans, why then are criminals caught with firearms not subject to stronger penalties?

I responsibly own an AEG but must admit that politicians have a strong case in banning replica firearms.

Really? What "strong case" is that? If you can't dissuade criminals from carrying REAL guns, why would anyone think that prohibiting fake guns would be any more effective?

Besides helping a few thousand Canadians roleplay, ownership of replica firearms to the public serves minimal positive aspects to the public.

I agree with you. Regardless, there are "minimal positive aspects to the public" in ownership of anything, be it a model boat, a model car or a model gun. Should all these things be prohibited because they don't serve a positive aspect to the public? These are things that individuals in a supposed free and democractic society possess because, under the tenets of freedom of expression, there is no requirement to justify their possession.

The onus is on the Government to prove that availability to and possesion of replica guns by the public is dangerous. As long as Canadian Tire can sell high-powered pellet guns that surely cause bodily harm, it can never be justified that my toy replica that fires 6mm plastic can be deemed against the public interest.

When I was a child, it was common to play "guns" with replica firearms. It was normal. Criminals were still criminals, and we didn't blame the toys for the actions of the demented or unlawful, because somehow we were better equipped to see things for what they are, instead of what we'd like them to be.

As a family, we kept a loaded .22 in the closet. It was common, and nobody thought it was strange. Everyone in my family learned how to shoot. It was common, and nobody thought it was strange. All the boys would get together in the evening and run around the neighborhood in dark clothing "shooting" each other with toy gun. It was common, and nobody thought it was strange or warranted a response from the local police.

I blame the following generation (not my parent's generation, but the one that came after) for pussifying the world we live in, for transferring blame to inanimate objects instead of taking responsibility for poor parenting. I blame that same generation for tolerating criminals and criminality, by embracing political correctness. An entire generation has been raised under the premise that they can do no wrong, are free to be punks and criminals, to disresepct authority and transfer any responsibility for their actions to social contributors such as poverty, racial heritage, geographical location, cultural difference, or just plain ignorance.


I intend to help reverse the pussification of Canada instead of contributing to it by teaching my own children responsibility for their actions. They will learn to handle firearms safely, and will be encouraged to shoot along side me at the club. They will learn that Newton's Third Law is in fact correct; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and through this law they will learn responsibility.

We were once able to assign responsibility to a person, instead of blaming something inanimate. Replicas were used in crime, and criminals were punished for it. The way it should be.

It is unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional to punish the law-abiding for the actions of the unlawful.

[Lawdog]

Damn fine post Mad. There is no rational justification for banning airsoft guns.

LD

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Damn fine post Mad. There is no rational justification for banning airsoft guns.

LD

Interesting how we can agree on this fundamental while dissagreeing on many others.

Cheers.

[Kuraitenshi]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Damn fine post Mad. There is no rational justification for banning airsoft guns.

LD

Rationality dosen't matter. Criminals using wepons scare the people who abaide by the laws. The poeple who abide by the laws, vote for the most part. In order to get elected politicians need people to vote for them. Inorder to get votes, politicians put together useless and unenforceable laws that sound good on paper but have no other redeaming qualities. Voters hear the ideas and vote for the ideas they like. Therefore bans on things like replica wepons come into effect. and the voting masses are palcated until alternate wepons become popular to commit crimes with and new hot air spews from a politicians ass. but it makes the masses happy.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Kuraitenshi

Rationality dosen't matter. Criminals using wepons scare the people who abaide by the laws. The poeple who abide by the laws, vote for the most part. In order to get elected politicians need people to vote for them. Inorder to get votes, politicians put together useless and unenforceable laws that sound good on paper but have no other redeaming qualities. Voters hear the ideas and vote for the ideas they like. Therefore bans on things like replica wepons come into effect. and the voting masses are palcated until alternate wepons become popular to commit crimes with and new hot air spews from a politicians ass. but it makes the masses happy.

I have to disagree with you Kur. Political action is dreiven by a number of factors, one of which is public pressure, one of which is rational evaluation and another (amongst many more) is the potential that the law will be struck down as unconstitutional or just generate a bunch of really expensive lawsuits (ie the autistic children cases in Ont).

When one advocates, you emphasize your strengths and minimize your weakness (part. in lobbying). The strengths of the airsoft position are firstly the lack of a rational connection between the prohibition and the good it is supposed to engender, and secondly the possibility of it not passing constitutional muster, or generating a bunch of annoying lawsuits. The weakness is on the popularity side, where there are not enough pro-airsoft people to make a difference at the federal level (I'll leave the other levels for another discussion).

Having lobbied on many occasions I might suggest that rationality plays more of a role in government policy making that those outside the process might suspect.

LD

[Blazen]

Some good points Madmorbius.

There is a big difference between model planes, boats, and replica firearms. The main difference being that replica firearms have potential for severely harming society while model planes/boat forseeably at the moment do not.

Now here me out on this. In a crime, if you remove the tool, yes, the intent is still there, and you have not fixed the basis of the problem. The criminal may even simply pursue a different tool (knife, finger) to commit the crime. However, firearms raise the severity of a crime. Firearms are on the extreme end of lethal weapons. They have the range to harm all those in vicinity of the area as opposed to samurai swords and Ka-bars. A man holding up a store with a replica firearm or real firearm is much more dangerous to the eyes of society, especially police, than one using a knife. Replica firearms increase the number of times a police officer is forced to encounter (in their eyes) a lethally armed criminal (real of fake gun). A politician will easily outweigh the needs for replica firearms - a police officer having to deal with a potential life or death situation or a few people getting to roleplay more accurately.

You covered an interesting area in your post MadMorbius

Why do we react differently when some idiot uses a toy gun in the commission of a crime? Just as the drunk driver is responsible for driving drunk, a criminal is responsible for pulling the trigger. Likewise, when a criminal brandishes a toy weapon to a police officer and winds up dead, we should not blame the availability of the toy or the officer's reaction. The criminal made a concious descision to put themselves at risk, and as such the criminal is directly responsible for the outcome.

That is a very honorable and simple way to view life, however life is not black and white. Take this for example, if every single citizen was armed with a firearm, do you think crime would increase? With your rational, it would not, since a tool does not create a criminal. If every drunk individual in a bar possessed a hidden knife, would there be more stabbings? If every Canadian was provided a cigarette, would not more people smoke? Putting full responsbility on the individual is respectable, however it is not realistic. Accessibility is a huge factor - it can create a crime. Many crimes can be situational. I've witnessed fights where someone in a crazy drunken rage has attempted to use whatever objects around them as a weapon. The severity of his crime was directly related to the effectiveness of the weapon he could get his hands on. He screamed to the other fighter that he's lucky he left his knife at home. That night, poor accessibility saved the other man's life. That altercation ended there, and nothing ever came from it.

Providing easy access to replica firearms does create crime as well as unnecessarily raising the severity of the crime.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Blazen

Providing easy access to replica firearms does create crime as well as unnecessarily raising the severity of the crime.

I love theory. Yours is flawed, but's lets step beyond that. However do keep in mind a replica firearm is not lethal, it just looks that way.

Provide us with any evidence that the statement quoted above is true.

Then tell me the ture cost of regulating the issue v. the true cost of leaving it as it is now.

Then replace the words "replica firearms" in your statement with alcohol and see if it reads the same.

There is no evidence that "replica firearms" create crime. Secondly, unlike having a knife, they do not increase the severity of the outcome of the crime, rather they have the possibility to increase the severity of the response to the crime. So we are going to legislate away a basic liberty to protect criminals from being shot by police or recieving longer sentences?

Hmmmm

LD

[Kuraitenshi]

The justice system isn't aimed at personal responsibility. I was intoxicated and not responsible for my actions, seems to always be a good excuse to get a number of years knoked off a sentence.

Originally Posted by Blazen

Some good points Madmorbius.

Thank you for adhering to comonly accepted debating practices. It's remarkably refreshing.

There is a big difference between model planes, boats, and replica firearms. The main difference being that replica firearms have potential for severely harming society while model planes/boat forseeably at the moment do not.

This is perception. Regardless, the underlying point remains that I, as a free and law-abiding citizen, should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on my liberty due to the actions of the unlawful.

Now here me out on this. In a crime, if you remove the tool, yes, the intent is still there, and you have not fixed the basis of the problem. The criminal may even simply pursue a different tool (knife, finger) to commit the crime. However, firearms raise the severity of a crime. Firearms are on the extreme end of lethal weapons. They have the range to harm all those in vicinity of the area as opposed to samurai swords and Ka-bars. A man holding up a store with a replica firearm or real firearm is much more dangerous to the eyes of society, especially police, than one using a knife. Replica firearms increase the number of times a police officer is forced to encounter (in their eyes) a lethally armed criminal (real of fake gun). A politician will easily outweigh the needs for replica firearms - a police officer having to deal with a potential life or death situation or a few people getting to roleplay more accurately.

Replicas are harmless. The perception may be that they're dangerous when wielded by a criminal, but a ka-bar or sword can kill someone whereas a plastic toy cannot; it is only dangerous to the yielder who forces a lawful citizen or police officer to use lethal force based on the perception of imminent grievious bodily harm.

That is a very honorable and simple way to view life, however life is not black and white. Take this for example, if every single citizen was armed with a firearm, do you think crime would increase?

Statistics are widely available from multiple sources that prove that US States that permit open or concealed carry of firearms have seen notable decreases in violent crime. Conversely, countries and States that have outright prohibited ownership of firearms have seen significant increases in crime-gun use during violent crime. As the old saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The criminals have guns, and the victims have knives. Guess who's gotten bolder?

With your rational, it would not, since a tool does not create a criminal. If every drunk individual in a bar possessed a hidden knife, would there be more stabbings? If every Canadian was provided a cigarette, would not more people smoke? Putting full responsbility on the individual is respectable, however it is not realistic. Accessibility is a huge factor - it can create a crime. Many crimes can be situational. I've witnessed fights where someone in a crazy drunken rage has attempted to use whatever objects around them as a weapon. The severity of his crime was directly related to the effectiveness of the weapon he could get his hands on. He screamed to the other fighter that he's lucky he left his knife at home. That night, poor accessibility saved the other man's life. That altercation ended there, and nothing ever came from it.

Agreed, criminal activity may be situational. However, I carry a knife every day and I've never been tempted to produce it to settle a dispute. Likewise, I'm licensed to carry a concealed firearm while in the United States, and with that responsibility comes a requirement for forethought and increased judgement; I would not carry a weapon if I was inclined to use it offensively because I'm not a criminal.

Providing easy access to replica firearms does create crime as well as unnecessarily raising the severity of the crime.

I will require proof of this statement. I would counter that easy access to kitchen knives has not resulted in an increase in murders by stabbing.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Kuraitenshi

The justice system isn't aimed at personal responsibility. I was intoxicated and not responsible for my actions, seems to always be a good excuse to get a number of years knoked off a sentence.

You are entirely correct that the criminal justice system is not aimed at personal responsibility. It is based on the three factors of deterrance (general and specific), protection of the public and rehablititation (to be fair those are really the guidelines for sentencing but I think that is what you are talking about).

It is the civil justice system that concerns itself with concepts like responsiblity.

LD

[Blazen]

Lawdog, here are some links

http://www.geekswithguns.com/modules...rticle&sid=592

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...dle/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4686161.stm

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/news/1001938.aspx

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/view...28955&id=19833

http://www.gun-control-network.org/PR02.htm

Now, I've included a very wide range of examples here - from reports in other countries to examples of airgun related injuries. There are plenty more examples out there unfortunately. The main points to focus on are the number of crimes involving the use of replica firearms. Yes, it is difficult to prove without reasonable doubt that banning replica firearms would have prevented all of those crimes; however, it is equally if not more difficult to prove that all of those crimes would have occured nonetheless, with the use of an alternative (knife of real gun) had replica firearms been banned. From my experience, many of those kids would not have access to real firearms, and thus, the act of commiting a crime with intent of brandishing a real gun would not have occurred.

In relation to Madmorbius' point about focusing on the individual rather than the item, I agree with that statement but perhaps a replica firearm maybe an exception. I'm talking about that special little feeling people get when they pick up an airsoft, especially a full sized AEG - that extra boost of confidence, the feeling of power that entices even shy people to take pictures of themselves in heroic or not so heroic action poses. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that AEG's give everyone an ego boost that turns you instantly into a criminal, but that little confidence boost applied on a more fragile mind in the right circumstance might elevate them to do something stupid.

Lawdog:

they do not increase the severity of the outcome of the crime, rather they have the possibility to increase the severity of the response to the crime. So we are going to legislate away a basic liberty to protect criminals from being shot by police or recieving longer sentences?
LD

The unfortunate answer is yes. Not every person that commits a crime deserves to die. "If a kid makes a mistake of waving an airgun in the face of a cop he deserves to be shot". Many people on this site will fully agree with that statement however the majority of society will disagree. There's a reason we don't have capital punishment in Canada. (Don't turn this discussion into pros of capital punishment please!)

Would Chris Penley have used a real firearm if his airsoft was not available? Indetermined. Was Chris Penley killed because he used an airsoft gun in his crime? Yes. That's not a big to deal to many of us, but talk to his family, his friends. I think they'll agree he didn't have to die. How does the police officer who shot him feel? Is this fair to them and other police officers who dread the use of their firearm so we may be allowed to play fantasy more realistically?

Madmorbius:

Regardless, the underlying point remains that I, as a free and law-abiding citizen, should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on my liberty due to the actions of the unlawful.

This happens everyday. All drugs would be legal if people would not use them to the point of abuse. If you study the origins of cocaine, many early tribes used it responsibly for a number of positive benefits. More recently, I can't have a beer in public because some dumbass got too pissed on the streets and ruined it for the rest of us.

Replicas are harmless. The perception may be that they're dangerous when wielded by a criminal, but a ka-bar or sword can kill someone whereas a plastic toy cannot; it is only dangerous to the yielder who forces a lawful citizen or police officer to use lethal force based on the perception of imminent grievious bodily harm.

Again, potential range of the lethal weapon must be considered. A police officer is not forced to immediately shoot someone yielding a sword. On a sidenote, I am avid sword collector and the banning of swords is a common topic in forums. However, with swords, there are more pro factors than airsoft possess. (cultural ties, direct relation to its art/sport)

Agreed, criminal activity may be situational. However, I carry a knife every day and I've never been tempted to produce it to settle a dispute. Likewise, I'm licensed to carry a concealed firearm while in the United States, and with that responsibility comes a requirement for forethought and increased judgement; I would not carry a weapon if I was inclined to use it offensively because I'm not a criminal.

I highly respect you for that. If only all people shared your level of honor we would not have this problem.

I would counter that easy access to kitchen knives has not resulted in an increase in murders by stabbing.

Hasn't it though? Husband comes home to find wife in bed with another man. In a fit of rage, husband grabs kitchen knife and stabs wife and other man. It sounds very silly but the truth is - remove every tool man can use to kill - man can no longer kill. I don't propose to ban everything including our own hands but function dictates what remains and what does not. Knives will stay for the simple reason that's been brought up many times - they serve a functional purpose. Replica guns? _______________ fill in the blank...

I think the main reason of distaste for the banning of replica guns is that it serves to make a criminal's life safer and hurts us law abiding citizens, however - A person's life will always be worth more than a hobbyist's fantasies, even if it's a criminal's life.