Going the RE-ENACTOR way.

[Greylocks]

I own real guns, many real guns. I'm a re-enactor (from the medieval ages on up, including late 18th century).

The only differences I see between what we do here and what re-enactment is about is the equipment and time period we cover.

So we re-enact modern tactics and situations? Okay, that still falls under the definition.

What would other re-enactors think? From experience, I bet they'd say "Cool, can we try it too?"

Too many of you seem to think the term re-enactor would limit or restrict what we do, and I really dont see where that perception comes from.

I know we re-enact tactics in use all over the world, and we use equipment from all over the world because that's how wars and conflicts happen today. We have the entire latter part of the 20th century to pick information from. Others choose to go with earlyer time periods.

Either is just fine. Why, for example, cant we re-enact what happened in Munich if we want to do a hostage rescue scenario?

The arguments on acceptability are again premature. It's too early to even think about that. All we can do now is consider the possibilities and change a few terms.

Read what Lynxicanus wrote; he nailed it perfectly.

[Gryphon]

Indeed. However I don't know if "hunting" people for sport is something that necessarily needs to come up; images like that can be mitigated through careful manipulation and PR.

They call the stupidest things sports these days. In the States they have professional video gaming leagues because apparently mouse clicking and button mashing now qualifies as sport. If paintball does I see no reason why we cannot either. The long-range tag characterization can be applied to our case also, with a military twist. Lately with the war on terror there has been a resurgence of interest in things military which we could probably capitalize on, regardless of people's feelings on the conflicts. It at least offers a plausible explanation for the interest airsoft has received lately.

[lt_poncho]

Originally Posted by MadMorbius

If by supporting firearms rights you provide support for airsoft by extension, who cares what they think of it?

I guess that's what it comes down to when we have to decide what we are as an entity.

The first choice is go the route of paintball, making it socially acceptable with changing terms, outlook, manner, image, etc., while keeping the actual FUNCTION of the sport intact. I would like to add, however, that the paintball community themselves had an INFLUENCE over the manufacturing and distribution of the products that supported their sport. We dont, we're not even recognized in the international forum.

The second choice is to join forces/support a higher cause, such as the CSSA and others, in hopes that a broad reaching decision can be made that would put us again back into a darker grey area than at present, since in itself by the very definition is not yet clearly defined. (Yes the CFC has defined much of it in their policies and regulatory mandate, but they have limitations that subject it still to a "case by case basis").

But here's the thing - when do we decide what we are? What constitutes a voter? I dont expect anyone to answer that easily.

I think Greylock's suggestions are warranted, but lets face it - we lack the framework on which to build these ideas when it comes to times like these. We don't even really know where we stand now, today and tomorrow. And it's not for a lack of trying either.

[lt_poncho]

Originally Posted by Gryphon

They call the stupidest things sports these days.

Makes you wonder if there is any merit to getting Airsoft recognized as an international sport, since so many nations practice the game. Go Team Canada!

If you said there was an international cup involved, our Canadian public would be critisizing the government about not having the proper training facilities.

Sorry , I got to go laugh at that imagery...

[Brian McIlmoyle]

At the end of the day it is not what we do that is in danger of becoming set outside our grasp.. Push comes to shove we can use paintball guns to play the game.

it is the tools we use that are at risk.

But even there... it is really access to the tools that is in direct peril today.

The Brits got a writen in defense to their law to allow them continued access to airsoft guns.. we don't have that option

All the semantics in the world won't help us if the tap runs dry and retailers are squeezed out using currently existing legislation and policy. All that needs to happen is for the CBSA and the police to enforce existing laws... and we won't have any retailers in Canada.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Greylocks

Too many of you seem to think the term re-enactor would limit or restrict what we do, and I really dont see where that perception comes from.

My God, hell just froze over, I'm actually agreeing with Greylocks

Precisely, re-enacting is the only route you can go because it does accurately describe what we do, even though the community doesn't currently see it that way, others outside looking in would and do if framed properly.

If you've ever been to a 're-enactment' proper, you will note it contains a lot of what goes on at an airsoft game, except there is usually a more period focus and the 'gaming' skirmishing aspect of it isn't as pronounced because they basically can't do what we do with BBs. If they battle its usually a scripted mock battle.

This is the only aspect of trying to treat airsoft as a re-enactment is the gaming component, but I don't think its a huge barrier - in fact its a fun variation to the re-enacting concept. Who knows, maybe one day you'll see a civil war re-enactment with airsoft driven rifles firing 50cal plastic balls (not **joke**).

Morbius also makes a good point regarding fighting the *principle* of taking people's guns away, be it airsoft or real steel. There is an underlying principle that you either support or don't support and most airsofters I think would support property rights and coopting the criminal and not his tool as the culprit of a crime. Legislating hammers isn't going to stop hammer attacks, people will just switch to screwdrivers.

[Greylocks]

Originally Posted by Gryphon

Lately with the war on terror there has been a resurgence of interest in things military which we could probably capitalize on, regardless of people's feelings on the conflicts. It at least offers a plausible explanation for the interest airsoft has received lately.

Well then, we just re-enact anti-terrorism operations. Everyone's anti-terror these days.

See what I mean? It's all how you say it.

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

At the end of the day it is not what we do that is in danger of becoming set outside our grasp.. Push comes to shove we can use paintball guns to play the game.

it is the tools we use that are at risk.

But even there... it is really access to the tools that is in direct peril today.

The Brits got a writen in defense to their law to allow them continued access to airsoft guns.. we don't have that option

All the semantics in the world won't help us if the tap runs dry and retailers are squeezed out using currently existing legislation and policy. All that needs to happen is for the CBSA and the police to enforce existing laws... and we won't have any retailers in Canada.

Thanks Brian, this is precicely my point. Without addressing the root cause of the risk, we gain nothing by re-packaging the game under a more socially-acceptable label. The concept of portraying airsoft as "military role-playing" is fine, but until we've legitimized the tools of the trade we can still loose them, new name or not.

Would it help the image of the sport itself? Perhaps, but perhaps not. In the end, paintball moved away from realistic guns (yes there are exceptions) simply because it was the largest obtacle to social acceptability.

Go nuts, try it out, and if it works then good on you all. I don't see it affecting me one way or the other, because I'm already as close to "military role-playing" as you canget. One way or the other, I'll keep playing the sport whatever it's called, until they ban the tools alltogether or legitimize them once and for all and tackle real problems like crime and criminals.

[Greylocks]

Originally Posted by lt_poncho

I think Greylock's suggestions are warranted, but lets face it - we lack the framework on which to build these ideas when it comes to times like these. We don't even really know where we stand now, today and tomorrow. And it's not for a lack of trying either.

We lack the framework now, but that can change fast. What we can do now, as individuals, is to rethink how we present ourselves and our game to the public.

That requires no framework at all, just a bit of care.

Changing terms and definitions does not change our game at all, it just makes it easyer to understand.

I re-enact modern battles, tactics, potential scenarios and rescue operations. So do you, and for a lot longer than I've been doing it. You know how a few words to someone who does not know the game can appear.

I can start changing what I say, no skin off my back, and the rest will happen with time (or not). But I will have made an effort towards something that makes sense in this day and age.

That's the huge difference between what we SHOULD do and what we CAN do. We can do this, if we try. Official paperwork and group decisions will come later. Right now it's the individuals (us) that count.

[Greylocks]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

At the end of the day it is not what we do that is in danger of becoming set outside our grasp.. Push comes to shove we can use paintball guns to play the game.

it is the tools we use that are at risk.

But even there... it is really access to the tools that is in direct peril today.

The Brits got a writen in defense to their law to allow them continued access to airsoft guns.. we don't have that option

All the semantics in the world won't help us if the tap runs dry and retailers are squeezed out using currently existing legislation and policy. All that needs to happen is for the CBSA and the police to enforce existing laws... and we won't have any retailers in Canada.

Re-enactors have been at the forefront of making many things acceptable, and some are downright surprising. I'll use the 17th-18th century groups for example.
Not that long ago, those events were un-heard of; now look at what was done for Quebec's 400th year?
Who would have imagined you would be able to buy real, functional, muskets in obscene calibers? Or even better, cannons, that are 100% functional?
(Yes, the re-enactors DO have the explosives and ammo for them too, they just dont use the ammo except at ranges)

It all happened because that type of equipment was required to do something that had a basis in education; they educate themselves about military history and battle tactics by doing them 'live'. So bit by bit, it started small, went big, went huge, and changed the laws/attitudes.

In airsoft, we do the same, but for a far newer time period. Same types of battles/games/sims, correct uniforms (or as close as safety or cash permits), and so on. We happen to have a valid need for the right tools too, and that's where airsoft comes in.

It wont change the laws for that instantly, but it will plant a seed.

That's all I want right now; start small, individually, and plant that seed.

Scarecrow; there have been many re-enactments done with no, or few, scripts. I've been in several where we were told to think outside the box, and those were a TON of fun for us and the spectators.

Originally Posted by Greylocks

It all happened because that type of equipment was required to do something that had a basis in education; they educate themselves about military history and battle tactics by doing them 'live'. So bit by bit, it started small, went big, went huge, and changed the laws/attitudes.

Are you suggesting that the resurgence of black-powder guns and black-powder shooting is a result of re-enactors creating a demand for the guns?

I'm not challenging that, but I'm legitimately curious if that's what prompted the comeback.

[Greylocks]

The resurgence started in the movies, and at fur-trading rendez-vous events. Then several other groups started to re-enact that period of history. Part of what happened was a demand for muskets of various makes, originals were rare...

As it was impossible to do those events without the right equipment, it started to put some pressure. Even the media thought it was silly to try and do this with wood sticks or yelling 'bang'.

As it was colorful, historical and interesting to watch, the attitudes changed. Eventually, as the laws were being reconsidered, it was noticed that those muskets were used by re-enactors more than anyone else.
Since the use was harmless, they became Perceived as harmless and the laws for them were relaxed a lot.

Go to any large re-enactment and you'll see exactly all those soccer moms who would burn us at the stake taking their children to watch.

So yes, re-enactors and what they do were a part of the reasons for the change. I'm not joking about the cannons either.

This did not happen overnight, it took over 40 years. But it did work.

Since airsoft guns are not firearms, this idea could lead to a change in the laws eventually IF it's spun right.

[redhawk_six]

Originally Posted by Greylocks

It all happened because that type of equipment was required to do something that had a basis in education; they educate themselves about military history and battle tactics by doing them 'live'. So bit by bit, it started small, went big, went huge, and changed the laws/attitudes.

Nice try with the logic, but its seriously flawed. For example, blank firing WW2 era weapons are needed for WW2 reenactment. WW2 reenactment also has a basis in education. So, by your logic, they should be legal. But they're not. They're prohibited. Only film production companies can get their hands on them, and even that has restrictions and limitations.

And cannons arent legal just because they're needed for reenactments.

Just because we call ourselves reenactors and say we need airsoft for our 'reenactments' doesnt mean the laws will eventually change for our favor. In fact, I bet it would have zero effect on the laws just like reenacting has had zero effect on the laws pretaining to blank firing weapons.

Plus, where's the 'basis in education' in airsoft games? Teach people about modern military tactics? How often have you seen REAL modern military tactics used in your average skrimish?

[Pip]

We use real tactics during most of ours. Peel-back, ambush set up, fire and manouvre techniques....sure you can't use them if you are playing a speed ball type game, but i think the majority of players want and do use real tactics as much as they can, i mean for me thats one reason why i play airsoft, so i don't have to use speedball type techniques (as many bps as you can get in the air etc)...but thats just me.

[Greylocks]

redhawk_six

Blank firing weapons are in a different class of law, and we were talking about a very specific group, not all. WW1, 2, and up are still fighting to get reasonable rules established. It's currently easyer for them to use a real Lee Enfield with a blank adaptor than getting a purely blank firing gun.

There is still lots of work to be done to change other things, but it worked for muskets.

The cannons I refer to are from the same era as the muskets, not modern cartridge guns; but they are operational. I've seen privately owned cannon up to 6-pounders. I can buy both with little effort, my PAL has nothing to do with it.

I did say, clearly, that nothing would happen right away. BUT... if we give it time, things can change as the past has proven.

Education; how often do I see real tactics in use at games? Hmmmm, you never do ambushes in your games? How about coordinated assaults? Sniping? Scouting? Convoying? Point defense? Planning? No?

If you dont do that already, what do you do? And where do you think those tactics came from?