Instigator
Points: 7

Should Australia legalise airsoft?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Brendo
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 3
Description
(I had to restart this debate because the debate I made earlier broke in some way. I am new to this site and am still learning the ropes)
If you are not familiar with airsoft, the international sport uses specially designed BB guns. The sport puts two teams up against the other, where they work as a team to tag all members of the opposing team. A tag is when one member of a team hits another player of the opposing team. Whoever has the most tags at the end of the game wins. This sport is extremely similar to paintball.
Round 1
Published:
Airsoft is an extremely popular sport and is enjoyed by millions of people worldwide. However in Australia, even attempting to import an airsoft gun of any type will result in that person being contacted by police. I do not see any reason as to why airsoft and airsoft guns should be banned. I have heard of arguments ranging from immature kids to armed robbery. I will explain how this can be resolved further into my argument.

The main argument I hear against the legalisation of airsoft and airsoft guns, is that the guns look ‘too realistic’ and will be mistaken as a real gun. I can understand the point. Yes, from a distance, most airsoft guns look like a real gun. So does replica firearms, which are completely legal in Australia. Gell ball blasters are also almost identical to airsoft guns. The difference is that gell blasters shoot gell balls, while airsoft guns shoot BBs. So why would the government legalise both replica guns, and gell blasters when they ban airsoft guns because they are too realistic?

If airsoft guns look very similar to a real gun, treat them very similar to how you would treat a real gun. In Australia, there are very strict laws regarding all aspects of owning any type of firearm. Firstly, both the gun and ammunition must be stored inside a locked gun safe, with the gun and ammunition in seperate compartments. If you have the gun in your car to take it to the range, repair shop, ect. You are not permitted to make a detour such as going shopping on the way there or back. If you do, you must have another person who has a gun licence to keep an eye on the gun at all times. Leaving the gun unattended may result in a suspension of your gun licence. Finally, as you must do with all guns, the owner of an airsoft gun must have a valid gun licence. You must be over the age of 18 to have the licence, however you are permitted to allow anyone, that you believe is responsible enough, to use it while under your supervision.

If someone thinks it would be a funny idea to walk around the street pointing an airsoft gun at random cars and pedestrians, or attempt to rop a store. The police would act accordingly. Like I said, the guns do look realistic, therefore the police would act as if the gun is a real one. One argument is that the police would immediately shoot the person holding the gun. This is not true. In fact, there was a terrorist attack in Melbourne last year. The police spent several minutes dancing around the attacker before even considering drawing their guns. If a kid was to carry even a real gun around a public area. The police would draw their guns, but they would not shoot unless the kid does something to give them an excuse to shoot such as pointing the gun in their direction. However, common sense would kick in when you are surrounded by police officers, all pointing a gun in your direction. When the police officers find out it was an airsoft gun, they would have a short investigation and appropriate charges would be made.

As you can see. There is no reason as to why airsoft should continue to be banned. Airsoft provides a fun, enjoyable sport which should not be banned because a small minority does not have common sense. I have already seen millions of people in support of legalising airsoft in Australia, and a member of parliament will soon be speaking to the government, attempting to legalise the sport. Thank you for accepting the debate. Good luck, and have fun for the remainder of the debate.

Published:
I agree with you that airsoft should not be banned, but I do not agree that it should be "legal" because I don't believe in laws.
Laws are a social construct and require both force and authority to uphold, you are programmed by society to follow and believe in laws and you are institutionally persecuted for breaking them. This is the mark of an only partially civilized society, we literally have to make up conceptual bullshit and program it into people's heads just so people can co-exist instead of having a culture which produces reasonable people. We literally have a society where the conditions that produce destructive behavioral patterns are usually caused by society itself, and rather than recognizing and mitigating what produces such behaviours we blame the individual and "punish" them.
The worst abusers of the law are the ones who write them and the ones who are rich enough to bribe their way around them. Airsoft guns should not be legalized, criminalized or regulated by any institution.
Round 2
Published:
Your statement was irrelevant to the topic. You even admitted that you agreed with me. If I wanted to discuss wether or not laws are “a social construct” then I would have made a debate with that title. I was expecting an actual debate where my opponent would actually stick to the topic while you went off and found something completely irrelevant. First impressions for this website are not very good. Please stick to the main topic of airsoft and airsoft guns.

However, I am still required to provide a rebuttal. So I may as well do so for this round in order to show that I can provide a reasonable response. Laws are one of the best ways in order to keep a country from falling into anarchy. The difference between first and third world countries is how well the law is enforced. You can look at countries such as parts of Africa that does not have a strong law enforcement. Those countries have a high crime rate. Compare that to parts of Asia such as Japan who have a strong legal system and enforcement. Those countries have a lot lower crime rate. Removing the legal structure means that there is no one to enforce any laws. The country would then fall. You may argue that society would develop norms that would help stop people from comitting crimes, but that would further develop back into some form of legal structure.
Published:
Laws are one of the best ways in order to keep a country from falling into anarchy.
Anarchy is not an inherently bad thing. The need for systemic hierarchy arises from a culture that doesn't teach it's people to self govern and to govern each other.

 The difference between first and third world countries is how well the law is enforced. 
Not really, the main difference is resources, education and industrial/infrastructural development. 

You may argue that society would develop norms that would help stop people from comitting crimes, but that would further develop back into some form of legal structure.
There is no basis for this assertion. A true civilization prevents destructive behaviour rather than just punishing it.

Round 3
Published:
I am disappointed that the debate topic has completely changed. I was expecting a debate based on Airsoft and airsoft guns. And wether or not they should be legalised in Australia as they are currently banned. However, you decided to completely go off topic and change the debate. I will be creating a new debate and hopefully my opponent will stick to the pain topic.

However in order for me to even get a chance of winning a debate I did not accept, I will be required to respond to your previous argument.

“The need for systemic hierarchy arises from a culture that doesn't teach it's people to self govern and to govern each other.”
The problem with allowing others to govern themselves is that people have completely different perspectives on what is right or wrong. If the United States Government removed all legal system, people would use this chance to do things that would have previously been illegal. Rape, murder, theft, ect would greatly increase as there are very little consequences to the person committing these acts. In order to help prevent people from doing things that would harm other people, animals, and the environment, laws would need to be in place. Appropriate punishments are used to deter people from breaking these laws. If there were no punishments/consequences, no one would follow these laws.

“A true civilization prevents destructive behaviour rather than just punishing it.”
Punishment is a form of prevention. If a child misbehaves, you may send it to their room as a form of punishment. That child would eventually understand that what they are doing is not allowed and would change their actions in order to avoid the punishment. Seeing others being punished for something should prevent others from doing the same in order to avoid the consequences. People still do commit crimes because they believe that they can avoid the consequences. In order to prevent more people from believing they can outsmat the legal system, the laws and law enforcement need to be stronger. As I said before, parts of Africa have a higher crime rate because the laws and law enforcement are not as strong as they are in the United States. Yes, educating people would also prevent people from breaking laws, but perspectives change over time which may cause them to decide that committing a crime would help them.

Again, I am disappointed that the debate topic changed. The only time you even mentioned the topic was two sentences in your first argument. I will be creating a new debate. (Third attempt at debating the topic) If you accept the debate a second time, I will refuse to debate unless you can prove that you will stick to the main topic. So far, my first impressions of this website are not what I was expecting.
Published:
Hole in a bucket, really wanna fuck it.
Added:
--> @Brendo
"So far, my first impressions of this website are not what I was expecting.". If you want to debate a higher rank, make the rating higher.
#17
Added:
--> @Brendo
Nice job. Sorry that the debate didn't go as planned.
#16
Added:
--> @Brendo
Please remake this saying 'airsoft guns' instead of 'airsoft' because currently you have an unfair semantic-legal-loophole to argue that airsoft be legal while the guns remain illegal (which is genuinely how the laws were/are constructed).
#15
Added:
Skimming around, the reason is apparently the Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Anyway your debate is not over if there is no reason, but should they legalize it. You'll just need to show flaws with the status quo, and some benefit. Con will probably have a counter argument along the lines of police shooting people for having toy guns, but if you keep your cool you'll find the obvious counterpoints to that and win.
#14
Added:
--> @Brendo
I agree with you on this.
#13
Added:
--> @PsychometricBrain
He wants it legal for under-18
#12
Added:
--> @Brendo
The only reasonable argument I can see against legalising an enjoyable sport is that some might use the guns to harm animals. However, if someone really wants to harm animals, they could just as well do so without softair guns. Softair is legal in the UK and I don't see why you guys shouldn't be permitted to enjoy the same privileges as us, airsoft probably makes people handle weapons more responsible rather than less.
I'll vote later (without considering my slightly biased views obv.), good luck in the debate.
#11
Added:
--> @Brendo
you seem like you would be into Electronic music (yeah being ageist here) https://www.debateart.com/debates/557 please give a vote if you got time (any scoring system will do, just explain it please thanks)
#10
Added:
--> @Brendo
Once someone accepts the debate, you will have an option to publish your arguments.
#9
Added:
--> @Brendo
You have to wait, google-docs is a free way to begin formatting it (but paste it without formatting and reformat inside the argument section as formatting takes up a lot of characters somehow if you just paste it)
#8
Added:
Quick question. How do I post my argument? I am new to this site and I cannot find an option for me to post it. Or do I have to wait for someone to accept before I have the option?
Instigator
#7
Added:
This looks quite interesting. I'm not Australian so I'll sit back and watch. Hope you get a good opponent!!
#6
Added:
Heck, let's leave it at 18+ to avoid too much hoo-ha
#5
Added:
--> @Brendo
But, I do agree with you that this is a bit silly if the owner is say 16+ and held responsible for the injuries caused, it's pretty safe for a social democracy with sane citizens like Australia to legalise.
#4
Added:
--> @Brendo
I was kind of asking you what's the issue with it being illegal. Also, if you use the 'gel ball blasters are similar' argument, then a skill Con-sided debater here will say 'and that is proof that gel ball blasters should be outlawed as well' and reverse your dynamic to cancel that argument out.
#3
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This one is easy for me.
Pre-fiat Ks require substantial burden in my view - con needs to provide not just compelling reason why the whole concept of laws are bad, but also has to show me why I shouldn’t operate under the assumption that laws are okay for the purposes of this debate.
Con does neither, and tentatively offers a minor defence of his kritik.
As a result, as pro offers an argument - cons K is discounted - arguments to pro.
Conduct:
Pro clearly wanted a genuine debate, con had no intention of providing one: the k, and the final round “Hole in a bucket, really wanna fuck it.” makes it clear that pro was arguing in good faith whilst Con was not. As a result, this behaviour was unreasonable and antisocial and warrants conduct mark down against con.
Conduct to pro.