Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to offer my opinion and experience in regards to the recent consultation paper published with regards to improving legislation concerning firearms and similar articles. I myself have never owned nor used a firearm; however I do regularly take part in organised airsoft skirmishes, and own four Realistic Imitation Firearms which I use for the sport. I will therefore only have constructive input to offer in response to Chapter 2, "Lethality".
I have plenty of experience with Airsoft replica weapons, the vast majority of which have a muzzle velocity which is less than 350 feet per second when firing a BB with a mass of 0.2 grams, which equates to approximately 1.138 joules. This is the generally accepted standard upper limit of muzzle velocity across the airsoft community in the UK. I also have much experience disassembling airsoft guns in order to maintain them and replace parts to improve the performance (rather than muzzle energy) of the weapons.
After reading through the chapter, I agree wholly that legislation should set a clear definition of a lethal weapon, which can easily determine whether an article can be considered a Firearm, or an Imitation Firearm. I do not believe that "Lethal" should refer only to its capacity to kill a person, but rather its capacity to inflict a life changing injury. To explore this, I will follow with the idea that the muzzle energy of a firearm should decide the fact, as it can be scientifically measured with chronographs, aiding in the timely resolution of a legal case.
The situation I believe that would give the greatest chance of a life changing injury requiring the lowest muzzle energy of a firearm involves a shot from the firearm fired at point-blank range which strikes the eye of the injured party. If the missile was travelling with sufficient energy, it would penetrate the eye and cause irreversible damage, resulting in permanent loss of vision. This scenario does not require a very powerful article to class as a firearm, as you can imagine how fragile the human eye is. There has in fact already been an attempt by the Association of Chief Police Officers to determine the lethality of an airsoft weapon, which included an experiment conducted by the Forensic Science Service, which noted that a steel ball bearing will penetrate the eye with only 0.8 joules of kinetic energy, whereas a plastic BB requires 1.4 joules of kinetic energy.
This brings me neatly to my second observation, which is noted in paragraphs 2.43 and 2.48 that certain projectiles will be inherently more dangerous than others owing to their penetrative capability. From the data given by the Forensic Science Service, it is clear that the material of the projectile makes a great difference, as we can say at least that a metallic missile will cause more damage than a plastic missile with equal kinetic energy. Compounding this complication is that the shape of a missile could also have a significant impact on the lethality of the missile, as a dart shaped missile will likely cause more damage due to the increased pressure of its impact.
With these points in mind, I will give my personal opinions with regards to the three consultation questions in Chapter 2:
1) "What should the Lethality Threshold be?"
I believe that for most "firearms", this should be one joule, as this takes into account the potential for any ammunition that could cause serious harm. However, with respect to my responses to the other two consultation questions, I also believe that in a firearm that is designed to fire only spherical plastic missiles, and that cannot be readily converted to handle or discharge and missile other than a spherical missile, that the limit should be increased in line with the Home Office's guide and the recommendations of the Association of Chief Police Officers
2)"If the threshold of lethality was set at 1 joule would it have a disproportionate impact upon the legitimate trade in air weapons?"
I can only speak for the Airsoft Community, as I do not have any experience with other legitimate trading of air weapons. The airsoft community has coped well in the past with the introduction of the VCRA, which in its first iteration technically criminalised the sale of any airsoft replicas. This is the driving force which created the United Kingdom Airsoft Retailers Association (UKARA). Since its formation, the UKARA has become a mainstay in the airsoft community as almost all Airsoft Retailers and Airsoft Organisers (those that organise properly insured skirmishes) subscribe to. It has even become so well recognised that when an airsoft enthusiast purchases an airsoft replica from abroad and it is shipped into the country, the UK Customs Agency will check the UKARA registration of the Airsofter and allow the RIF to continue on its journey once they are satisfied that it is being used legitimately.
3) "If the threshold of lethality was set at 1 joule should there be a specific exemption for the airsoft trade, similar to that already contained within the VCRA 2006?"
Owing to the findings of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Forensic Science Service, and the presence of the UKARA, a strong registration system within the airsoft trade, I believe that there should remain a specific exemption.
The premier reason for this is that setting such a low threshold of lethality has the possibility of criminalising newer members of the community, owing to the nature of an airsoft replica. as Airsoft is popular all over the world, and many countries operate different limits of muzzle energies (for example, American airsoft tends to have much higher muzzle energy limits, and Japan has a strict energy limit of 1 joule) the replicas on the market often have a wide range of muzzle energies, and many new players, upon obtaining their first airsoft replica, will attempt to increase or decrease the muzzle energy of the replica to a level just below the "site limit", typically 1.138 joules. In doing so, it is possible that they may accidentally set the muzzle energy of their replica above the lethality threshold, without any intention of doing so. Coupled with this, many airsoft replicas are powered by the expansion of pressurised gas, typically a specialist mixture of propane and lubricant, and sometimes other ingredients (known as green gas). These replicas can suffer from variations in their muzzle energy as a result in changing temperatures, increasing the mass of the ammunition (as heavier ammunition is often used to increase the accuracy of an airsoft replica) and differences in maintenance techniques.
Finally, for the purposes of airsoft, one joule falls well below what could otherwise be defined as the maximum safe muzzle energy. at all airsoft skirmishes, wearing suitable eye protection is mandatory, and failure to do so usually results in the instant removal of the player for their own safety. This is often a condition of the PI insurance held by the organiser. As all airsoft players wear eye protection, the risk of serious injury is greatly reduced, and speaking from experience, absolutely any barrier between an airsoft BB (with a kinetic energy of around one joule) and your body will prevent the BB from breaking the skin, whether this is a chest rig used for carrying magazines or a thin summer base layer. There is of course still the potential for injury in other areas, if a player is hit in the ear this is likely to draw blood. there is also the possibility of being hit in the mouth as a significant portion of the airsoft community choose not to wear full face protection, which can result in broken teeth; whilst this is certainly unpleasant, I would not consider this a life changing injury, and in fact mouth injuries do not seem common at all.
I hope that my input has been valuable to your consultation, and should you require any further explanation of my opinions, I would be more than happy to assist you
Yours Sincerely
R****** Grover
