What you are correct in pointing out CamSS is that the whole FPS thing makes no sense, albeit they could just be assuming standard round size and weight. Kinetic energy is the only relative dynamic to danger really, because if something has enough velocity to be dangerous then it will by all certainty have enough kinetic energy to cause serious bodily harm, but these things are relevant in one direction. This is why I'm not concerned and why I believe airsoft isn't affected, yeah know, other than all the current legislation, is because of what they were trying to do. Take firearm out of the equation for a moment. What they were trying to determine was the danger factor of the gun in question and how it was used. He was threatened, well, that part is relatively cut and dry, if the allegations for the sake of argument were/are true. The second part is how dangerous was it? Kind of like threatening someone with a baseball bat versus threatening them with a paper sculpture that looks like a baseball bat. The threat is illegal certainly, but is the object, gun or not, capable of harm? The pigs eye test was probably used in quick resolution to give or take legitamacey of a claim made by either the defense or persecution. Such as "he threatened him with an obvious toy, he was never in danger", or "he threatened him with a clearly dangerous instrument, and it should be treated appropriately". Something along those lines. So they took the gun and the stock ammo it had, and conducted at which velocity that ammo becomes capable of severe bodily harm. I can't see this applying to guns that shoot spherical styrene rounds and can quickly have their velocities and kinetic energies changed on fly, either through ammo or parts swapping. The RCMP-GRC along with the Canadian Firearms Program have set out in detail the methodology and legality of airsoft guns, along with similar devices, and how they fit into current legislation. The CBSA are close, but are very much doing their own thing as usual.
Also to answer the other question, it is and and not or. 'Or' does appear, but for a different purpose entirely.
ďREALITY IS LIKE A STONE. TO MANY ITíS HARD AND COLD, THEY CANíT HUG IT OR EAT IT, IT ONLY FRUSTERATES THEM AND DOESNíT DO THEM MUCH GOOD. TO OTHERS ITíS STRONG AND DEPENDABLE, YOU CAN BUILD WITH IT, BUILD UPON IT, OR WORK WITH IT, ALSO USE IT TO SMASH PEOPLE IN THE FACE.Ē