Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle
Originally Posted by Goldman
I just don't understand why there is this sudden turn on replicas. Yes they are replicas and look real, but don't fire real rounds... How exactly is this a bad thing? If anything, I'd feel safer being mugged with a replica rather than a real steel pistol, that way if mr.criminal gets jumpy, I don't get dead.
I keep seeing the arguemnt of "what if a cop has to shoot a kid". Does anyone have a stat on if this has ever happened in Toronto? If the issue is gang bangers using them for crimes, fuck the gang bangers. If you knock over a 7/11 with your hand in your pocket looking like a firearm, your still charged with Armed Robbery, so why would replica's be any different?
Could someone please show me a rational argument, with facts behind it, about why replicas should be prohib in any form?
Replicas already are prohibited.
the ban proposed is a municiple bylaw amendment to make it a offence punishable by a fine to be found with a replica if you are underage.
Can't see how this will affect adult responsible replica owners.
The current laws are written such that an abuse of possession of a replica, such as concealed carry, brandishing in public, use in a crime results in the same charge as if the gun was real. It is problermatic from a enforcment standpoint.
It is easy to stand here and say.. "Just shoot them" but the use of that level of force carries substantial ramifications. I don't think anyone here wants to live in a society that has police that shoot first and ask questions later.
When faced with to potential of a gun armed person, the decision to "take them down" is potentialy life changing.. we are not talking about a bb welt here.. which is likely the most serious wound most of the people here have had inflicted on them or inflicted on others.
How would you feel if you shot and killed someone who really had posed no threat? that could have been dealt with differently if they had been armed with a pointed stick instead of what looked like a lethal weapon?
I sure would not want to be a police officer faced with these situations.
I don't think the level of force being used in a situation like that is nearly as underestimated as you make it out to be. I totally understand that shooting someone, can, and likely will change the life of the shooter forever, however at the same time, while I cannot speak on the belaf of police members, as I am not one, I don't agree with the view that shooting a criminal, who had a replica, would cause nearly as much severe psycological trauma as you imply.
As for the police shooting first and asking questions later... I don't have a problem with that. As I understand it, police officers can't just open fire simply because they feel threatened. They can only do so if they see a weapon, and even then there are specific rules. (ie: I think they are allowed to fire if someone is threatening them with a knife within 40 feet).
In these cases, its already established that the suspect has a weapon, and the officer is only going to fire if they don't put it down. So really the chances of a police officer shooting someone who is only carrying a replica are rather low, given that the suspect wold have to indicate their intention to fire, by either not dropping the replica, or by aiming at the officer, for the officer to fire. In fact, I don't see where the shoot first - questions later concept would come from. This isn't the wild west, where you draw on your dueling oppenent and fire first.
Honestly, this ban, as well as a number of other proposed things are just feel good legislation. Given that you already stated its illegal for a minor to have a replica, how is this by-law going to have any real effect? What purpose does it serve, other than burning city money being enforced on dollar-stores city wide?