Have Countries Proposed Outright Bans on Gel Blaster Imports?

With their metal exteriors and realistic designs, gel blasters are often difficult to distinguish from real firearms. This ambiguity has led some countries to not only regulate but outright ban the importation of these controversial toy guns due to concerns over public safety and misuse in crimes. However, others argue that gel blasters have legitimate uses as recreational toys, and that outright prohibition is an excessive response that penalizes law-abiding citizens. This article will examine the debate around bans on gel blaster imports, looking at arguments on both sides and experiences in countries that have proposed or implemented such measures.

Gel blasters, also known as hydro blasters or gelsoft guns, are airsoft-style toy guns that fire water-filled gel beads made from a synthetic polymer. Originally developed as a safer alternative to airsoft guns, which shoot hard plastic pellets, gel blasters have surged in popularity in recent years. This growth has been especially pronounced in regions where laws restrict airsoft guns, like Australia and parts of Asia, since gel blasters often escape regulation due to their classification as children’s toys rather than imitation firearms.

However, the realism and potential misuse of gel blasters have raised alarm bells for regulators. With metal components and tactical designs that closely resemble real guns, gel blasters have been used to commit armed robberies, threaten violence, and even as props in high-profile kidnapping cases. This has led to growing concern that gel blasters undermine laws restricting real firearms by providing gun-like weapons that criminals can obtain without legal obstacle. [1]

In response to these concerns, several countries have proposed or enacted outright bans on the importation of gel blasters:

Australia

In July 2021, the state of Western Australia preemptively banned the importation, sale, manufacture, and possession of gel blasters. This followed other Australian states like New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia which had introduced gel blaster regulations requiring permits and distinguishing markings. However, Western Australia went further by implementing a total prohibition in response to incidents like a 2020 armed robbery conducted with a gel blaster. Offenders face fines up to AU$12,000 under the ban. [2]

New Zealand

After a spate of armed robberies and gang-related activities involving gel blasters, the New Zealand government announced in October 2021 it would explore options to regulate or ban them. Gel blasters are legal to own in New Zealand but require a permit to import. The country had seen rapidly rising crime related to gel blasters, including a 350% increase in armed offenses over the prior two years. The Police Minister stated “we have formed a view that there’s no legitimate reason for gel blasters to be out in the community” and “we will ban them.” [3]

Singapore

In December 2021, Singapore imposed a total ban on gel blasters by classifying them as “arms” under the Arms Offences Act. Carrying a gel blaster in public now faces punishment of up to 5 years imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane. The ban also prohibits the import, sale, and transfer of gel blasters without a permit. It followed reports of numerous gel blaster offences, including armed robberies and recreational users threatening the public. Authorities determined gel blasters “negatively impact public safety and security in our society.” [4]

Arguments For Banning Gel Blaster Imports

• Gel blasters can be easily mistaken for real guns – With metal components and realistic designs modeled after actual firearms, gel blasters are extremely difficult to visually distinguish from the real thing. This causes issues for both law enforcement and the public.
• Potential for gel blasters to be misused in crimes and threats – Criminals exploit the realism of gel blasters to use them as imitation firearms for offenses like armed robberies, intimidation, and kidnappings. Their ambiguity also makes them a legal loophole.
• Involvement of gel blasters in high-profile crimes – Countries that implemented bans often cited gel blaster’s growing use in serious criminal activities as a key justification, from armed robberies to gang warfare.
• Concerns over public and police safety – Mistaking a gel blaster for an actual gun can have dangerous consequences. Police or bystanders may react with lethal force to someone brandishing what appears to be a firearm.
• Challenges verifying legality during police encounters – Officers have difficulties rapidly ascertaining whether a visually convincing replica weapon is a real firearm or not. This can increase tensions during investigations and arrests.
• Availability undermines existing gun laws – Where firearms are heavily restricted, gel blasters with a toy designation provide an unregulated alternative. This can subvert the intent of laws meant to control gun ownership and use.

Arguments Against Banning Gel Blaster Imports

• Legitimate recreational use as “toy” guns – For gun enthusiasts, gel blasters provide a legal and safer way to enjoy simulated firearm-like activities where airsoft is prohibited. They let gamers recreate activities like paintball or target shooting.
• Economic impact and job losses for local retailers – Gel blaster sales have become big business in countries where they are popular. Outright bans affect both retailers’ livelihoods and availability for legal recreation.
• Penalizes law-abiding citizens over criminals – Responsible gel blaster owners pay the price while organized criminal groups still access regulated items through black market channels.
• Drives gel blaster activities underground – Prohibition removes legal oversight of gel blaster use and sales rather than enabling safe regulation and monitoring.
• Scope for alternate regulations instead of outright bans – Other options exist like requiring distinctive markings/colors, mandatory secure storage, restricting minors’ access, or registration systems.
• Education as an alternate approach – Informational campaigns on proper gel blaster use and risks may work better to promote community safety instead of blanket bans.
• Partial prohibitions may be ineffective – Banning sales but not possession may fail to address concerns while still harming retailers. Criminals may retain existing items.
• Enforcement difficulties and creation of a black market – Practical issues around enforcing total bans include identifying illegal imports and possession, which stretches law enforcement capacity.

Are Outright Bans the Best Approach?

The question remains whether implementing sweeping outright bans on gel blaster imports provides the most reasonable and effective policy response. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue: while governments undoubtedly have a duty to promote public safety and security, banning gel blasters also negatively affects legitimate hobbyists and retailers that use them lawfully. As gel blasters do not actually discharge live ammunition, banning their importation may also be viewed as a disproportionate response by some critics.

There are also debates around whether outright prohibition or strong regulations would prove more functional approaches. Practical enforcement of import bans presents challenges, while regulations like mandatory markings could reduce ambiguity around gel blasters without preventing legal ownership. Nonetheless, countries instituting bans have determined the public safety hazards outweigh arguments for access. But without international consistency, focusing restrictions purely on imports may simply redirect black market gel blaster trafficking across borders.

Perhaps comprehensive policy solutions should involve aspects of both prohibition and regulation combined with non-legislative remedies. While Australia and New Zealand have emphasized blanket bans, the UK provides an example of a blended policy – it prohibits importation of realistic gel blaster models but permits imports of transparent or vividly colored variants less usable for crimes. [5] Alongside some prohibitions, public education campaigns could also play a role by informing retailers and owners on safe practices and outlining the rationale behind restrictions.

Ultimately the issue involves complex trade-offs between individual liberties, commercial interests, law enforcement capabilities, and risk mitigation. But countries instituting import bans have determined that based on gel blasters’ ongoing use in threatening criminal activities, their regulation as toys fails to reflect the hazards they pose to public safety when misused.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main arguments for banning gel blaster imports?

The main arguments are that gel blasters can easily be mistaken for real guns, have potential for misuse in crimes and threats, and undermine existing firearms laws by providing an unregulated alternative. Concerns around public and police safety are also frequently cited.

What are the counterarguments against outright gel blaster import bans?

Critics argue bans penalize responsible hobbyists, carry economic impacts, drive the activity underground, or that regulations could address concerns without prohibiting legal uses. There are also concerns around enforcement practicality and creation of a black market.

Which countries have banned gel blaster imports?

Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore have implemented outright bans largely motivated by gel blasters’ growing use in armed offenses and other concerning criminal activities.

Have gel blaster bans proven effective at improving public safety?

As bans are relatively recent, definitive evidence is still limited. However, authorities often cite reductions in gel blaster offenses. Critics argue bans primarily affect law-abiding citizens, while criminals still access black market supply channels.

Could regulations be a better policy option than outright gel blaster import bans?

Potentially – options like required markings, restricting minors’ access, registration systems, or secure storage rules could regulate gel blasters without prohibiting legal use. However, countries with bans determined public safety issues warrant prohibition.

What are some enforcement issues with gel blaster import bans?

Practical enforcement challenges include detecting illegal imports and possession, identifying compliant variants, and stresses on law enforcement capacity – straining agencies may struggle to make gel blaster enforcement a priority.

Do gel blaster bans remove them from communities entirely?

Not necessarily – while bans limit access, pre-existing owners may retain their gel blasters. And organized criminal groups have resources to potentially obtain newly restricted items illegally through cross-border black market trafficking.

Could public education campaigns be a useful supplement to gel blaster regulation?

Potentially – informing retailers and owners on safe practices, risks and the rationale behind regulations could help build community awareness and compliance. However, countries with bans suggest public safety concerns warrant prohibition beyond education alone.

Are there any countries that take a regulatory approach rather than banning gel blasters?

Yes, the UK prohibits import of realistic models but allows transparent or brightly colored variants less usable for crimes. This demonstrates an approach blending targeted prohibitions with permitting possession under certain restrictions.