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".