“What a******s like you don’t understand Mike is the RIF laws are there to make sure a cop doesn’t mistake a toy for a real gun. Here’s a picture now you tell me which one is real.”
-Jamie from London
Well Jamie, while I understand the “logic” behind the RIF legislation in the “violent crime reduction act” I think it’s deeply flawed. To make it a legal requirement that toys are a certain percentage luminous colours or else in the eyes of the law be seen The as “realistic imitation firearms” is nanny state gone mad politics.
The argument of course as you pointed out being that police won’t mistake them for real firearms, ok then let’s go down that route, what’s to stop a criminal painting real guns bright colours? What’s to stop someone buying a toy and spraying it black?
“But it’s against the law” I hear you shout, well if they already have real firearms illegally will they care? If they plan on using a sprayed toy to threaten someone will they care if it’s illegal to spray the toy?
My idea of a free society would be to not legislate against replicas but to punish those that use them for crime. When has banning anything ever meant you can’t acquire it, so why should it work in this instance with airsoft or even just toy replicas?
You asked me a question earlier and provided a picture. I included it in this response. Well let me also post a picture with a simple modification. Imagine where the orange is was sprayed, which one is the real one?