Report: 86 people carrying fake or toy guns killed by police in 2 years
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-86-carrying-fake-or-toy-guns-killed-by-police-in-2-years/Efforts to mandate that the realistic appearance of some of the guns be altered have been stymied from gunmakers and gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association, the paper reports.
I'm posting this here to ask a simple question of the experts.
Why is the NRA (and Gun Owners of America from another article) opposed to making TOY guns look like TOY guns?
= new reply since forum marked as read
BTW I use ignore also but I use the old fashioned one. I just don't read what I don't want to read. 
Actual *toys* do generally look very un-firearmlike, unless you pair them with a $1.99 can of black spray paint, as anyone who intends to carry one to use in a crime already does. And it's hard to make a rational case that armed robbers should be discouraged from using painted toys, as opposed to actual weapons.
Airsoft replicas, as opposed to toys, are intended to replicate the weight/feel/function of an actual firearm for safe indoor training in lieu of actual guns.
BB guns and pellet rifles are actual *weapons*, just not firearms, and are generally treated like weapons, even though the media often conflates them with toys. They are not.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/340195/benjamin-armada-magpul-edition-pcp-air-rifle-22-caliber-pellet-black-synthetic-stock-matte-barrel-with-4-16x-56mm-scope-matte-and-bipod
That's a .22 with a muzzle velocity of 1000 ft/sec, comparable to a short-case rimfire firearm.
This one is a .50, suitable for hunting hogs and coyotes:
http://www.pyramydair.com/s/m/Dragon_Claw_Dual_Tank_Air_Rifle/2500
Airsoft is intended to be non-lethal. At 400fps and firing a 6mm plastic ball I doubt that it can be made to be lethal. It is designed to be used in games shooting at other gamesters. It is a fucking toy. And I didn't see a single .50 cal or 9mm or any kind of break barrel in the mix.
Deflect much?
I asked a serious question of people who claim to be experts why pro gun organizations would oppose making non-lethal toys look like non-lethal toys instead of near exact copies of real firearms. Care to weigh in on that or ya' just gonna follow the gunner dogma of deflect, deny, attack and second amendment?
Show me the draft legislation that exempts airguns and adult Airsoft replicas as "not toys", then? Because everything I've seen would mandate special coloration/design for all Airsoft (whether child's toy or not) and often BB and pellet guns as well.
two theatre houses in DC have FFLs to receive props. If they are going through the hassle.......
I see getting a replica of a classic rifle for the study to hang in the study or den (not of a fan of the term "man cave" or over the fireplace, but a fake Glock 19? No.
So the law says Airsoft has to have a 1/2 inch orange stub on the barrel tip. I knew this and think it comes under the NASCAR decal rule; if it doesn't look straight from 50 feet at 50 mph, it ain't straight. If this tiny orange tip can't be seen during a standoff, possibly in the dark, when adrenaline is flowing and tensions are high it doesn't help.
As for the NSSF's and the NRA's concerns about painted air guns being treated as toys please explain why they both promote this: 
Now about BB and pellet guns. I searched Pyramidair for pistols. The muzzle velocity for these look alike guns ranges from just under 300 fps to just over 400 fps. The strong ones might penetrate a police uniform and break the skin at 20 feet. Yet they are lumped in with the most powerful break barrels like the one I own.
The concern of police departments is that 83 (reported) shootings of people with nonlethal imitation guns is too many when a simple fix would save these lives. I've seen nothing in this thread to explain the opposition to marking such toys and bb/pellet guns as what they are: toys. Now, if there should be a carve out for high performance non firearms it is worth discussing. The problem with that is that if that door is opened and it is admitted that these high performance air guns can be as deadly as firearms, the question changes to "Why not regulate these guns like conventional firearms?"
You can't really have it both ways and look like reason applies to your position; either they are 'real' guns and should be regulated like conventional firearms or they aren't and should be treated as such.
for quite some time now. Just want to see how much line he takes out. 
Why are you asking about toys in the GC&RKBA group?
I don't happen to think your question belongs here but if you manage to suggest some relevance, I'll do my best to answer. I was going to alert for SOP but I thought maybe there might be something relevant.
Happy New Year 
I did come to believe I was on ignore but I'm not offended as it's a DU feature.
I do have to honestly say that I don't KNOW why the NRA and GOA oppose making (by legislation) toys look like toys and not real guns. I have your OP that says they do but I don't interest myself in news or views which derive from either group.
I conjecture that this may have to do with the source you sited considering some items as toys which the two pro-gun groups do not. As I said, I've not studied the issue; I don't buy or own toy guns, real guns or even imaginary guns.
As I said before, I don't consider a toy gun to be a gun. I agree they're possibly deadly but they're not guns. I still don't see the reason for discussing them in this group but at least you're discussing something and the word gun is involved.
Peace
P.S. - As a rhetorical preponderance, your answer left me wondering why you're reading my replies and answering while you keep me on ignore. I have accepted that some there are those contradictions I won't ever understand.
...for the purpose of playing along in the game of "these weapons look like guns but aren't and should be regulated like toys and if they were (and he says they are) what business does the NRA, etc. have in being against them marked like toys" nonsense.
:where's the calliope smilie: Is the circus in town?
about "future" technologies, be they air guns, phasers, ray guns, and all the stuff of Buck Rogers, and how courts and society might view them. I suggested these weapons would be accepted more or less as civilian self defense techs, just as radio, t.v., and the innertubes are accepted as free "Press." He clung to the old muzzle loader (that was what was used when the Second was written, and all) as the only firearm protected. I suggested that his argument should at least fall back to semi-autos as the quaint firearm meant for use by our forefathers.
BTW, the Second doesn't even mention FIREarms, only "keep and bear arms."