Should Gel Blaster Misuse Automatically Lead to Weapon Bans?

Gel blasters, known colloquially as gel ball guns or hydro blasters, have surged in popularity in recent years. Resembling real firearms, these gel blaster toy guns shoot small, colored pellets made of a water-based, biodegradable polymer. Marketed as a harmless alternative to Airsoft, gel blasters offer a flashy, tactile experience similar to paintball. However, a spate of high-profile injuries from misuse has raised alarm, even leading to outright bans in some jurisdictions.

With gel blasters causing both unintentional harm and being actively weaponized, calls for regulation are understandable. But do blanket bans fairly weigh public safety against individual liberty? Or do they risk overreach against responsible users? This article examines gel blaster controversies, analyzing whether misuse warrants limiting access through legal prohibitions.

How Dangerous Are Gel Blasters? Documented Harm and Safety Concerns

While intended as toys, gel blasters are powerful enough to potentially maim and injure if recklessly misused. High-velocity gel balls can inflict severe pain at close range. Eye injuries in particular have caused most alarm, including hyphemas, retinal damage, and even blindness.

In December 2018, Queensland Children’s Hospital reported eight children with eye injuries from gel blasters over six months. One gruesome 2019 case left a 14-year-old boy hospitalized with loss of vision, vomiting, and severe pain after being shot from 10 meters away. Less severe cases involving bruising and surface damage have also been documented in Australia and abroad.

Gel blaster misuse has also directly contributed to deaths. In June 2021, a 19-year-old Sydney man was charged with manslaughter after fatally shooting his friend in the chest at point-blank range, thinking the gel blaster was a toy.

While most documented injuries were unintentional, deliberate weaponization is perhaps more alarming. In 2019, Victoria police reported a rise in gel blaster robberies and assaults, including a grocery store stick-up. Schools have also faced frightening security breaches, with gel blasters smuggled in by students.

Advocates correctly argue gel blasters lack the destructive power of real guns. But they can clearly inflict harm, especially through misuse as makeshift weapons threatening public safety.

Bans as a Reaction to Rising Concerns

Given gel blaster dangers, government responses have grown increasingly restrictive. Queensland introduced the first Australian state ban in 2017 after extensive misuse reports. Western Australia, New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia, and Victoria later followed suit enacting near-total prohibitions on gel blaster ownership and use.

New Zealand has also taken aggressive action. In June 2020, gel blaster imports were temporarily banned after model guns caused public confusion. The halt became permanent in March 2021 due to ongoing safety issues. Only paintball markers are now allowed as legal recreational airguns.

Under these bans, gel blasters typically meet definitions of real firearms or illegal airguns. Queensland bans sale, possession, and use of any “toy guns” discharging projectiles with significant force. Western Australia similarly outlawed toys “substantially duplicating in appearance” regulated firearms. Violators face thousands in fines or even jail time.

Such responses aim to curb threats to public safety by greatly restricting general access. But critics argue that bans unfairly target responsible users unlikely to misuse gel blasters. Broader issues of individual liberty and proportionality have also been raised.

Do Bans Unfairly Punish Law-Abiding Users?

For law-abiding gel blaster owners, outright bans feel less like public safety enhancements and more like collective punishment. Responsible users argue they’re being stripped of recreational property and hobbies based on isolated incidents of abuse.

This criticism has merit. Gel blaster hobbyists using appropriate safety gear on private land or commercial fields have caused zero harm. Yet they’re barred from legally using their equipment under most bans. Such overreach may fail basic tests of justice and fairness by punishing the innocent along with the guilty.

Bans also won’t stop criminals and determined misuse. Targeted restrictions on irresponsible retail practices like unverified sales or underage buyers may be more appropriate. But laws modeled on firearm prohibitions, while politically expedient, gloss over differences between real guns and toy replicas.

There are also reasonable concerns that bans may lead to overzealous enforcement. South Australia approved 10-year jail terms for gel blaster possession, far exceeding penalties for actual firearms. Perceived “toy guns” have also prompted intense police responses, including fatal shootings in some US cases.

While governments must address public safety threats, banning gel blasters casts an excessively wide net. More tailored regulations could achieve protection from criminal misuse without undermining individual liberty for the law-abiding majority.

Do Bans Infringe on Individual Freedoms and Rights?

Fundamentally, gel blaster bans raise inherent tensions between public safety and individual freedom. Australians have no protected right to bear arms; US gun culture is foreign there. But principles like free expression, commerce, and due process arguably still apply.

Critics thus contend bans go too far curtailing personal choice for Orwellian notions of collective good. Law-abiding citizens being barred from harmless hobbies on their own private property raises obvious civil liberties issues. Gel blasters also represent millions in commercial trade and employment. Destroying this fledgling industry means economic losses and growth opportunities foregone.

There are also process concerns regarding excessive government power and overreach. Gel blasters bans were enacted quickly through executive action or hurried legislation, largely bypassing public input. And once these prohibitions are in place, reversing course becomes extremely difficult politically. This permits lasting restrictions on rights through temporary fits of moral panic.

Counterarguments that public safety outweighs inconvenience to a “niche” industry remain compelling. But critics maintain bans are a reactionary “sledgehammer” approach straining principles of justice and lawful exercise of state authority. More restraint and public participation in deliberations may have led to fairer outcomes.

Could Compromise Through Regulation Balance Safety and Liberty?

While polarized between permissiveness and prohibition, gel blaster policy need not be binary. Regulations and mandatory safety requirements could potentially bridge public protection with individual liberty instead of choosing between them.

Moderate regulations applied to gel blasters might include:

• Minimum age requirements (e.g. 18+)
• Mandatory secure storage when not in use
• License and registration systems for purchases/ownership
• Required background checks and waiting periods for buyers
• Bans on specific design features like metal pellets or gun aesthetics
• Strict rules on public brandishing, especially around schools or crowds
• Limitations on fps (feet per second) velocity rated as unsafe
• Zoning of approved fields/areas for organized gel blaster use

Such compromise approaches balance legitimate public safety concerns against responsible ownership rights. Gel blaster misuse must be deterred through fair enforcement, while harmless enjoyment remains permitted within guardrails.

Blanket prohibitions on gel blasters may seem prudent. But more tailored regulations could achieve safety aims without undermining economic freedom and individual responsibility. Prudent government policy should attempt this middle ground.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are gel blasters controversial?

Gel blasters are controversial because they resemble real firearms but shoot soft gel pellets, blurring the line between toy and weapon. Though marketed as harmless, irresponsible use has led to serious injuries. This has raised public safety concerns and calls to regulate or ban gel blasters despite their popularity.

Can gel blasters injure or kill?

Yes, gel blasters can injure or even kill if extremely misused. At close range, gel balls fired at high velocity can cause eye wounds or other trauma. While rare, deaths have also resulted from mistakenly using gel blasters as toys. However, serious harm requires reckless misuse rather than any inherent danger of gel blasters themselves.

Are gel blaster bans fair?

Opinion is split on whether gel blaster bans are fair. Advocates argue bans protect public safety by keeping dangerous items from irresponsible users. But critics counter that bans lump together criminals with law-abiding hobbyists and exceed what is needed to address safety issues. Responsible users see bans as collective punishment.

How could gel blasters be regulated instead of banned?

Instead of outright bans, governments could regulate gel blasters through safety requirements, mandatory training, licensing, age limits, restricted areas of use, and other tailored measures. This allows responsible use to continue under oversight rather than prohibiting gel blasters entirely. Regulation is seen by some as a fair compromise.

What are the arguments for and against gel blaster bans?

Arguments for bans include reducing injuries, especially to eyes, preventing misuse of gel blasters as weapons, avoiding public confusion with real guns, and eliminating perceived threats to public safety. Arguments against bans include punishing law-abiding users, exceeding what is necessary for safety, destroying businesses, limiting individual freedoms, encouraging unsafe black markets, and setting excessive punishments.

In the gel blaster debate, emotions understandably run high. These devices tread a thin line between harmless recreation and serious danger depending on context. But reactionary prohibitions meant to maximize public safety may go too far curtailing individual liberty and lawful commerce.

With careful regulations and safer practices, societies can perhaps reap the benefits of emerging technologies like gel blasters without unacceptable risks. But achieving the right policy balance remains challenging. This complex issue defies simplistic bans based on isolated cases of sensational misuse.

As gel blasters continue proliferating worldwide, regulators should be cautious to not wield excessive powers on the basis of fear and uncertainty. With prudence and restraint, governments can craft tailored policies that responsibly enhance public safety while respecting individual rights. But achieving this nuanced outcome will require open-mindedness, compromise and dialogue from all sides.