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.