Categorized | Editorial - Commentary

Airsoft Safety Foundation Casts Paintball As the Bad Guy

The Airsoft Safety Foundation published a press release regarding CA SB 798 a few days prior to the bill’s failure to pass out of committee.   The statement can be read in its entirety here.

Among other things the release said were:

“Federal law requires airsoft type guns to have orange muzzles, only. It completely exempts paintball, BB and pellet guns from any coloration in recognition of the fact that they are relatively powerful and should be treated as being potentially dangerous.

Curiously, SB 798 was recently amended to exempt paint ball (sic) guns from the proposed state coloration requirement while still mandating that the potentially more dangerous BB guns and pellet guns be colored like toys.”

and

“…thus giving the paint ball (sic)  industry a competitive advantage in the marketplace…”

and

“Exempting paintball guns from SB 798 would have comparatively little impact on the economic and job losses that would be suffered as a result of the bill”

and

“SB 798 has been promoted as a public safety bill, but in view of the paint ball gun (sic) amendment, it can no longer be touted as a safety measure. It has become, instead, a bill that would favor paint ball (sic) guns in the marketplace by requiring their competitors to be colored like toys.”

Emphasis ours.

You can read the entire missive here.

No big surprise.  Now the war is on – which sport can vilify the other the most effectively in front of the CA legislature.

Airsoft can squirm all it wants to, but the fact remains that airsoft guns are made to look like real firearms and most paintball guns aren’t'  at least half of the paintball guns out there ALREADY come in bright colors.

There’s also the impression issue to consider: paintball managed to divorce itself from the military wannabe connection in a deliberate bid for public acceptance and managed that admirably (just look at all of the positive mass media portrayals over the past 15 years).  Airsoft, on the other hand, seems to want to embrace the connection.

And after all this time, Air Soft Safety Foundation, you’d think you’d learn how to spell paintball’s name right, wouldn’t you?


23 Responses to “Airsoft Safety Foundation Casts Paintball As the Bad Guy”

  1. 68Caliber says:

    You are mistaken. Rap4 and Battle tested paintball guns do not fall under the color requirements and can still be played, so your concerns are groundless.

    Would I personally prefer to see paintballers staying away from military simulation? Absolutely. The game only grew and flourished once we managed to divorce it from those associations. By embracing that kind of play, we are opening the industry up to political attacks that we don’t need and that we, as an industry, are ill-equipped to deal with.

    Besides, you can still play in the woods without it having to be milsim – and we’re doing just that by re-introducing woodsball competition with the hard Core Paintball League.

  2. DruidicRifleman says:

    Geektinkerer Stapler’s Cops in canada have killed a guy cause they though a stapler was an Ak47 AND that was the RCMP.

    they should ban stupid people for claiming to talk about the sport…

    would be allot better.

    OOOOH also… All airsoft sites in canada Mandate the very thing you discuss soooo might be a local thing.

  3. DruidicRifleman says:

    wait wait wait…

    Banning A section of the paint ball industry (the one that includes rap 4 milsig battle tested) strengthens and helps the paint ball industry grow….

    thats been an interest in the sport since… Two guys who worked in some forestry service decided to shoot each other with paint marking pellets and marking guns and created a sport?

    SOOO my style of paint ball should be banned cause it makes Speed ball look bad? WOW…. i thought world of DB had dumb poster’s. This is dumber.

  4. GeekTinker says:

    In my opinion, Airsoft did the distancing from paintball itself. During my past experiences with attending paintball events, I distinctly remember noticing that a majority of paintball players had a case for their paintball marker (yes, I am an advocate of calling them “markers”). I have always encouraged paintball players to disassemble their paintball marker and store it in a case for the trip home.

    During that same time period, my experience with airsoft players was exactly the opposite. They routinely did not place their air soft gun (the pellets are usually plastic beads and do not “mark” anything) into a gun case and did not seem to have a problem with brandishing them in public outside the air soft facilities and I assume their homes, apartments, etc.

    Most people outside of these two sports will pay little attention to a person carrying a case (even one in the shape of a firearm) from his car or apartment to his car or into a building designed for play. Yet, that same person is going to notice a person carrying anything that looks like real firearm, simulated or not.

    My conversations with most airsoft players suggesting that they place their airsoft gun into a case for transportation were usually met with a negative attitude and response. I’ve also noticed a reluctance among airsoft players to use a barrel cover when off the field of play. I have never understood this attitude against safety, but I would imagine that it varies depending upon the location.

    Having said that, I am still not in favor of this bill for any toy. I do not believe this will save lives. People have been shot by police while holding a garden hose nozzle, a remote control, a padlock, and a stick. All because the officer thought it was a weapon. Toy guns in bright colors won’t protect people in those cases. What they will do, is cause a police officer to pause long enough for him or her to be shot and killed by a criminal who paints or anodizes a real firearm into the bright colors to match a water pistol. Colorful anodizing is already available for firearms. Is there a part of this bill or a similar law restricting this practice?

    This whole proposal is a silly “knee-jerk” reaction to give the anti-gun lobby something to practice on in the legislative branch. Instead of telling the law that paintball is dangerous, the air soft player organizations should be telling them, “We see that you’ve given a exemption to the Paintball Industry. We would like to see a similar exemption for Air Soft Industry”. They should be asking the Paintball Industry how they garnered such an exemption and who they should talk to in order to secure the same.

    Personally, I don’t want a BB gun or a Pellet gun to need to be made in bright colors, either. This is a pipe dream, fantasy land, nirvana that the anti-gun lobby is trying to create and it is destined to fail as long as concerned citizens stand up and disagree with them. Don’t vote these yah-hoos into office during the next election!

  5. William Garrison says:

    When i say governing body I mean something like the NAPRA or one of the other groups that tried to unite the industry so that we could fight stuff like this. Beleive me, I am no fan of government.

  6. Reiner says:

    What governing body for paintball is that?

    A general statement about governments. Governments are supposed to work for the people and represent the people (or at least the majority – no possible way for one government to be able to please everyone). If we wanted the government to mind their own business and stop telling us what to do, we wouldn’t need a government at all. Nor would we need a police force or courts. People could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. Sounds like paradise – Not! Sounds a lot more like hell.

  7. William Garrison says:

    10-4. I beleive it was in an old Paintball Sports Int. I very well could be wrong and age and time have me remembering it wrong, but I’m pretty sure thats how I remember it.

    At least we may have finally gotten that governing body for the industry that we were talking about a while back. I think we are going to need it very soon.

    And I grew up in the 70s and 80s, I had alot of the same stuff. It seems that in the 90s people all of a sudden became stupid and someone decided that they needed to be protected from themselves. I say screw that, let the weak and stupid do themselve in before they spawn. Circle of life and all that ;-P

  8. 68Caliber says:

    I’ve got some emails in to Jessica, so I expect that I’ll be able to confirm or deny that assumption fairly soon.

    I hear ya dude. If YOU think its bad now – try having grown up in the 50s or 60s: we never locked our house or car doors; my parents left me home alone at 9 and 10; I stayed in a hotel room under my own name at 13. Never had to wear a bicycle helmet, never had to wear seatbelts if I didn’t want to; babies rode in their mother’s laps in the front seat. Can’t tell how many times I got liquor off some passerby in the parking lot of the liquor store (hey, I’ll buy your beer if you pick me up a fifth); can’t tell you how many home room teachers laughed at me drinking out of a brown paper sack in the back of the classroom (and it was more than 1); never had to worry about paying extra to get ALL of the television stations; never had to worry about age restrictions on video games (but then, there wasn’t any such thing). I could go on, listing ALL of the many great and wonderful things that I did or did not have to do when I was growing up that are or aren’t even legal these days.
    Bottom line: when the judge has one case a week, he can afford to listen to all kinds of extenuating circumstances. When he’s hearing 100 a day, its ‘what are the charges and what’s the mandatory sentence’. We just don’t have time any more to give people space because there’s just too damn many of us.
    Here’s hoping for a nice, quiet nuclear war between india and china, followed by some kind of plague that wipes out 90% of the rest of us (miraculously avoiding all of those folks who are near and dear to us).

    Damned kids, they ruin everything for everybody!

  9. William Garrison says:

    My understanding of the NRA thing was that because paintball was wanting to be seperate from the real firearms, and we ticked off the NRA who then said to heck with it. Thats what I remember reading in a article from Jessica Sparks years ago. I get what your saying, but I still feel that we don’t give them an inch. I’m growing increasingly tired of being told how to live, what to eat, what to drive, how to think, etc. I’ll be damned if I’m going to be told how to play.

    Bottom line, I’m just weary of being told what I can and can’t do by people who need to mind their own business.

  10. 68Caliber says:

    Same back to you Bill. And don’t think for a minute that I didn’t expect to hear from you on this subject.

    First, I think it is improper to draw a connection between firearms control issues and “toy guns”. If/when THEY come for us, that airsoft pistol or paintball electro is not going to help out the revolution all that much. And of course the elphant in the room difference is that firearms can kill, while neither airsoft or paintball guns can (unless perhaps you use them as a club).

    So far as the ‘sacrifice’ comment goes: I’m looking at this strategically/politically. I’m not advocating for that, merely pointing out that when there isn’t enough room, water or food in the lifeboat, it helps to have something you can throw overboard without killing everyone.

    You always want to have a position you can back up to. A solid, defensible position. Trade space for time. Doesn’t mean we want to go there, just that we may have to.

    Paintball’s “solid, defensible position” is the one we arrived at in the early 90s – a politically correct, socially acceptable presentation of the game that could be presented on the nightly news with smiling commentators. What I’m saying is – IF we have to go back to that, we can and the game can survive.

    And, in all fairness to the situation – being allowed to play a game is not a life or death, threat-to-the-constitution situation. I really, really, really liked my lawn darts, but they’ve been banned. I’m still here, the lawn darts aren’t. I’ve found other things to do.

    Not that I want to see an end to paintball at all.

    And let’s not forget the history either: when paintball was being used as a bludgeon against the NRA, the NRA dropped paintball. There was no ‘standing together”, because in that case it was recognized that standing together was going to get everyone hung separately. The harsh calculation was made by the NRA that it could not survive in a form that it wanted to and at the same time support an aspect of shooting sports that was viewed as indefensible at the time.

    In my opinion, ‘look-a-likes’ bear the same relationship to airsoft and paintball that paintball did to the NRA back in the day.

    The argument against them is just too easy to make, too sound-bitey and too seemingly sensible to be able to offer an effective counter-argument. “Why do they have to look like the real thing?” Well, ummm, because that’s what players want. “Oh, you mean the people who’s actions and choice of recreational activity we already think are a bit nuts?”

    You just can’t stand in front of a legislative body and offer ‘because’ as an argument. Because the truth is, they don’t HAVE to look like real guns to let us do what we do, and anyone with half a brain (which may include some legislators) can see that for themselves.

    I agree that society is being squeezed on all fronts, and I happen to believe that it is due mainly to “too many people, too few resources”, which results in the making and passing of least common denominator laws, things like ‘zero tolerance’ in schools and sentencing (but it was a butter knife under the seat of her car, in the parking lot. Too bad, she had a “weapon on campus” – two weeks suspension!) because society no longer has the time or resources to handle things on a case by case merits basis. We’re forced to handle things with cookie cutters. Blunt cookie cutters.

    And finally, I don’t view the handling of the situation by the CPSC as appeasement, I view it as pretty astute horse trading. The incentive to continue down the restriction path has been terminated – WITHOUT giving anything paintball up.

    And I guess really finally – sometimes there are alligators everywhere and the only way that you and your buddy are going to escape them is if one of you volunteers to be et. An opportunity for noble sacrifice, true, but don’t forget that the one who lives is the one who gets to tell the story afterwards.

  11. William Garrison says:

    Steve, I have always enjoyed our discussions on the site and on the phone, but I have to strongly disagree with you here. Yes, the navy seal wannabes are as annoying as the pro wannabe twibs. That being said, We are all paintballers, be they speedballers or woodsballer/milsimers. It disturbs me that you say that we can sacrafice milsim on the alter of compliance. Compliance to what? Every time they decide to regulate alittle more and alittle more, we are going to cave in until we have nothing left? I say that we don’t sacrafice a damn thing. We are not doing anything wrong. We stand and we fight. Why should we give up anything? Its the same with firearms. First, we need to get rid of the evil “assault weapons” for our own safety. Then we need to get rid of “high cap magazines” for our own good. Next handguns, and before you know it, you are totally disarmed, the government then bans pointed kitchen knives (as they did in england) and you get prosecuted if you harm the burglar who broke into your house at night (austrailia). These laws don’t do a damn thing to help law enforcement. If the government wants to help police, then start helping us enforce existing laws and stop letting the criminals out with a slap on the wrist. The paintballers and airsofters need to stick together. Both are legal activities. We don’t blame the sport of baseball for someone beating someone else with a baseball bat. Why do we target a whole law abiding group for what a criminal does? Their guns look real. Yeah, so? What of it? ITS LEGAL. Sure, paintball can get along without the milsim guns, but once those are gone, they will continue to wittle away until there is nothing left. The extremist nutjob antigunners won’t be happy until everything with a trigger has been destroyed. They don’t care if its black with a fake magazine hanging off of it or if its neon green with flashing lights. I’m not drinking the koolaid on this polical correctness and I refuse to play with a rubber chicken stretched over my gun so that it looks less threatening. We are all paintballers. We need to stick together with all shooting sports because once all of those are gone, they will come for us.

    I have another quote from Sir Winston Churchill: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

  12. 68Caliber says:

    I don’t think that your view is all that much off the mark, but my POV is a bit different. Firstly, they strategically established (so far as lawmakers are concerned) that paintball and airsoft are two different things. Secondly, they secured an exemption for paintball – which had the concomitant benefit of (potentially) giving the ‘shoot projectiles at other people’ market to paintball (and I don’t know of ANY industry that would not take advantage of an opportunity like this: if the movie theater biz could influence legislation that would make it illegal to show full-length movies on TV/cable/satellite,,,if McDonalds could get Burger King thrown out of Pennsylvania…if Microsoft could get a mandate to install their browser on all PCs…) and – perhaps projecting a bit too far into the future but I think not: if they have to compromise further in the future, paintball still has some chips to play with. In terms of political strategy, the CPSC not only made the right moves, they really made the only moves they could that would benefit the industry in the long run. I think the only way that paintball and airsoft could have “worked together” on this deal would have been if the airsoft industry had been willing to accept the same (working) approach that paintball has used.
    What we’re left with is:
    paintball retains its political cred, at least in CA – demonstrating that they know how to back-room negotiate
    paintball has (perceptually) divorced itself from any negatives associated with airsoft
    paintball has cast airsoft in the role of ‘troublemaker’
    paintball – if placed under greater pressure – is in a much better position to handle future negotiations (where’s our quid pro quo?)
    paintball could still (if it had to) sacrifice milsim on the alter of compliance
    on the other hand, paintball may become the only refuge for those wanting the milsim experience
    paintball preserves the general legislative perception of an industry that cooperates with government: if follow-on laws are enacted elsewhere, they will all most likely retain the paintball exemption.

    what has paintball lost? Not much. A bit of bad feelings from airsoft towards it – which already existed and, considering the gyrations that airsoft’s lobbying reps are now going through (more eye injuries from paintball than airsoft – btw not mentioning that paintball has its own reporting category while airsoft is lumped in and way, way, way under-reported, trying to make a case that paintball guns are more dangerous than airsoft guns – not mentioning that there is still no universal requirement for facemasks in airsoft – claiming that paintball has little or no economic impact in CA – where do most players play? Surely not at paintball facilities that also offer airsoft…

    I think it reasonable to assume that the airsoft lobbyists and the paintball lobbyists had a few strategy discussions prior to the split and, while we don’t know the details, two things are obvious from the outcome: airsoft and paintball did not agree on how to handle it and, given the results, airsoft made the wrong decision.

    I would imagine it was something like “we’re going to get an exemption for paintball unless airsoft agrees to X, Y or Z”

    Winston Churchill said “There is at least one thing worse than fighting with allies – And that is to fight without them”; he was referring to the problems caused by the beginning of US supremacy on the battlefield during WWII. In this case, I believe that fighting with allies would have been too costly.

  13. 68Caliber says:

    Good questions.

    First, because there is a separation between the retail/advertising side and the editorial/news side of the website. They are two completely separate entities.

    Secondly, because the market is the market as it currently stands. The store selling or not selling a particular product is not going to affect the equation. On the other hand, the news site speaks pretty loudly. (And parenthetically, I think it is a testament to the industry’s ability to tolerate differing viewpoints that some of those products you mention remain in the store.)

    Thirdly, because the issue should be dealt with in an open manner, one where the different viewpoints are being heard and discussed in a rational manner, and not by taking (ineffective) economic action that only serves to shut down communication and harden positions.

    Fourthly, (particularly in the Valken Corps case) because the issue is not about attacking players. It’s about trying to effect some change through reasoned discussion. All paintball companies are, in the end, companies and their business is to make a profit. If current events provide an opportunity to illustrate how changing certain aspects of the industry/game can help it grow in the future and strengthen it as an industry, it would be foolish to not try and take advantage of that opportunity.

    Finally, my team is not “my” team. I am a member of the Master Blasters. I have input with the team, but I do not make the decisions for the team. Like any good team player, I support what the team decides to do and honor the commitment that I made to it.

  14. 68Caliber says:

    Grim, my name is Steve Davidson. If you look in the ‘About’, you’ll find it there.

    Does what you say mean that if airsoft guns had a completely non-gun-like appearance, you’d still be playing?

  15. Grim Reaper says:

    For one mr.68 caliber airsoft is not just played by 10 year old boy it is played by many people from all different ages, kids ( under supervision ),young adults, older adults . i dont even know if you have ever seem a actual airsoft match it is similar to paintball it is not guns made for scenario play even tho there are some airsoft guns made to look like them, and they are not meant to be played like “army in the woods” for what ever you meant by that. airsoft and paintball are just the same they are just different in some ways. yes, paintball is a sport; but airsoft is too. i play both airsoft and paintball, and love both of them. i am in the military so airsoft gives me a chance to actually customize my airsoft gun to what i actually carry. but my point is airsoft and paintball need to stop complaining about which is better and which will survive the longest. what will happen if airsoft goes away, will either the airsoft players will convert to paintball players or they will just not play at all. but once airsoft is out of the way dont you think that they will go after paintball also.

  16. Reiner says:

    I’m not going to argue that airsoft is based much more around a milsim format, but paintball is not without that side to it. There will always be boys (and grown men) that want to fantasize playing soldier/army/war games. It’s not my thing but who am I to tell people what they should fantasize about. But the fact remains that a fairly large part of our population does do that. With the USA being at war and soldiers currently being worshipped (for lack of a better word) by many, the milsim aspect of shooting sports has increased dramatically in the last decade or so.

    Paintball would no doubt have seen a considerable upswing in the Milsim genre regardless of whether airsoft existed or not. And yes, we have probably lost a decent part of the market to airsoft, but so what? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is that paintball also has a fair bit of Milsim mindset.

    Now, had the paintball lobbyists agreed to the elimination of all paintball milsim gear and that ALL paintball markers would be colored bright colors, then they would have an argument that they were working to rectify the problem (for those that see it as a problem). But they didn’t do that. With the agreement they made to endorse the bill, the way I see it, paintball manufacturers would still be able to make anything they wanted (and players could use anything they wanted), as far as look-a-like gear goes, but airsoft wouldn’t.

    In my eyes it’s a double standard and even though I’m not in California and I have nothing whatsoever to do with the California bill in question, I’m a little embarrassed that the industry hired people to do this on our behalf.

  17. question_MSC says:

    Steve/68C,

    I agree with your comments about wanting the realism/milsim aspect out of paintball. It is very annoying and potentially bad for the sport to be lumped together with people wearing military uniforms and carrying markers that look like M16s. That being said, why does your site sell something like the T9.1 (http://www.68caliberspecial.com/68-Caliber-Store/Marker-Tiberius-T9-1-Sniper-FS) or why does your team have a relationship with a company like Valken that has the Valken Corps (http://www.valkencorps.com/) with a military like name ‘Corps’, ‘Regional Commanders, and milsim looking gear in the pictures?

  18. 68Caliber says:

    Reiner,

    I have to disagree (respectfully). Back in the day, paintball was friendly with the shooting sports industry. We were, in fact, added to the NRA’s legislation watch program, allowing the industry to monitor such in a way that was totally beyond the industry at the time.

    Handgun Control, favorable administration & etc., then created a climate in which a sport that “encouraged people to point guns at each other and shoot each other” was complete anathema to the political line that the NRA was trying to push. The presence of paintball under the gun rights umbrella contradicted all of their other arguments. They dumped paintball. So much so that paintball companies became persona non-grata at the international shot show.

    Several years went by and the paintball industry re-trenched: it concentrated on displaying a public persona that emphasized sport, moved to concept fields, bright colored guns and bright colored uniforms, dropped red-fill paint entirely, engaged with the ASTM, engaged with the SGMA and bided its time as the game was gradually accepted into mainstream culture.

    Those changes (and a LOT of unsung work with the media by outspoken individuals who understood the game being played, as well as a lot of unsung fighting with local politicians) led directly to the climate that saw acceptance by the mass merchandising stores, which sent the oft-quoted message of the day “if mom and dad see it in Walmart, it must be ok”

    Since the heyday, milsim has been creeping back into the market, mostly, I believe, as a way to stem the tide from paintball to airsoft (which I also believe is strictly a $ based decision as opposed to any great cultural movement towards playing army in the woods), and not, again, because of any great desire to reassociate paintball with real guns or the military.

    I also believe that, as airsoft began to be introduced, it was a mistake for the paintball industry to sit by and do nothing to deal with its number one competitor. Instead, a lot of folks thought that they might be able to cater to both crowds, seeing as how both were so “similar”.

    In reality, they are not. Paintball can be played – in the woods – without having to resort to look-a-likes, without having to bring the quasi-military aspects of it in (and again, back in the day, the people who were into that kind of thing handled it amongst themselves in the manner that they organized their teams and groups, probably lamented the fact that they couldn’t buy an M16 or AK47 paintball gun – but they still played and remained largely invisible to the outside world.

    In other words, for the most part, paintball could accommodate all manner of mindsets WITHOUT becoming a blip on the radar screen.

    Airsoft’s raison d’etre IS the military aspect – one which they collectively seem to be unable or unwilling to divest themselves of (could all be ‘space marines’ using ‘plasma rifles in the 40watt range’), and the reason why the bill will affect paintball (eventually – the tide is going that way) and not paintball is because this issue is entirely a perception issue. Entirely.

    Paintball is now, following three decades, perceived as a sport and as a mostly harmless activity. Airsoft is still perceived as army-in-the-woods.

    The police departments want to get at least some “toy” guns off the street and airsoft has made themselves the designated scapegoat.

    I know it will cause some loss of business for some paintball mfgs, fields and stores, but I bet if airsoft did die out, paintball would re-capture anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of that market, mitigating a lot of that loss.

    If airsoft were to change over and make itself into a multi-faceted game with a variety of “publicly acceptable” images, it would be a different story.

    And I also have to say that paintball has also done a pretty good job of at least giving the impression that its got control over its constituency, while airsoft does not. Kids do regularly play airsoft anytime, anywhere, while most paintball activity is confined to commercial fields or private property.

  19. Reiner says:

    If the real issue is the realism of “toy” guns, I am surprised that paintball lobbyists were able to have paintball markers omitted from the bill. I am guessing it was a negotiated deal where paintball was omitted with the agreement that the paintball group would now support the bill making it easier to get passed.

    If paintball markers didn’t have the larger calibers to deal with, we all know there would be paintball markers made to be just as realistic as airsoft markers. I totally understand why airsofters feel they got sold out by paintballers.

    If the argument is that we (paintball) can survive without the realistic milsim markers because a lot of our markers are already colored, why did we feel we needed to hire lobbyists and throw airsofters to the wolves?

    If it was a larger, part of the rights to own guns and we don’t want to be legislated and told what we can and can’t do issue, why didn’t we team up with all “toy” gun stakeholders and fight for that right together.

    No, this was a move made for purely selfish reasons and even I as a paintballer (non airsofter) can see that quite clearly.

  20. 68Caliber says:

    James, There are guns made for scenario play that have the ‘look-a-like’ aspect to them – and I’d personally prefer to see them out of the game – but there are far more that don’t have that image and paintball can survive just fine if it did drop them, whereas – based on the vast majority of organized airsoft play, airsoft can’t/won’t be able to.

    Paintball is not about army in the woods (which ought to be reserved for popguns and dirt bombs, played by kids oh, ten and under I suppose – you know, during the GI Joe phase of growing up), although there is a segment that play it that way. Paintball is primarily a sport, not a re-enactment. Scenario can get along just fine with non-military themes (as it has been doing for 25 years).

    And Hank – you’re outta here. Permanently in the permanent moderation box.

  21. Hank Semenec says:

    Best summed up by…

    No, Hank. Nice spammy try, but you don’t get to use the comments section as a free advertising outlet. You’re now in the permanent watch list: you can post, but it will need moderator approval before it goes up.

    I’m not surprised as you tried this yesterday, and I’m always deleting spam comments from several airsoft distribution companies. Real professional. Not

  22. James says:

    Paintball’s ******** actions in relation to this bill have pretty much made me decide to dump the hobby all together in favor of airsoft. The major paintball gun makers all try for the ‘realism’ look just as much as the airsoft manufacturers do, and for the most part realistic looking guns are what I see for sale and on the field in California. Even before this bill came into play I’d found the general attitude of paintball players to be far less desirable to be around compared to the airsoft crowd.

  23. Rob says:

    They seem to be entirely missing the point. This is about aesthetic realism, not how badly either will affect an eye…

    They are correct however regarding competitive advantage as far as milsim goes. Those looking for realistic looking shooting sports will now be more likely to go with a milsig or rap4 and therefore get into paintball than before. That’s a decent sized market. We can expect to see milsim paintball get a boost if this goes through.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Friends of 68Caliber

Translator

English flagItalian flagKorean flagChinese (Simplified) flagChinese (Traditional) flagPortuguese flagGerman flagFrench flag
Spanish flagJapanese flagArabic flagRussian flagGreek flagDutch flagBulgarian flagCzech flag
Croatian flagDanish flagFinnish flagHindi flagPolish flagRomanian flagSwedish flagNorwegian flag
Catalan flagFilipino flagHebrew flagIndonesian flagLatvian flagLithuanian flagSerbian flagSlovak flag
Slovenian flagUkrainian flagVietnamese flagAlbanian flagEstonian flagGalician flagMaltese flagThai flag
Turkish flagHungarian flagBelarus flagIrish flagIcelandic flagMacedonian flagMalay flagPersian flag