Originally Posted by The Saint
Anyone notice the emphasis on handguns? They could've emphasis how sinister all them black rifles are, but they didn't. Unless the people charged were importing just pistols for a good while, which they probably weren't, one wonders why the emphasis on pistols, rather than across the board evil military guns?
I believe this to be media bias, although it may be un-intentional... ;->
IMNSHO, handguns have never been perceived as belonging in public hands (except by gun owners.) It is far easier for J. Q. Public to accept private ownership of long guns, as they are legitimate for use in hunting and pest control. I believe that this is at least in part due to Canada NOT having a recent history of private side-arm carry, which is unfortunate: there are many instances where a side-arm is much preferable for predator or pest control. If one has a predator/pest situation on the farm for instance, it's much easier to carry a side arm when doing one's chores than it is a rifle (although it must be admitted that for some varmints, such as coyotes, a long-range weapon is a must).
As a result, handguns are seen as anti-personnel weapons only, and therefore the 'most evil' of all firearms. (This and the ease with which they can be concealed.) If one wants to elevate public concern, one mentions handgun(s).
(Pre-post edit: after re-reading your post, I too now wonder why the 'military weapons' thing didn't come up. Perhaps the law enforcement report did not contain synonyms that were recognized by the media?)
The above are just my opinions. I am not in journalism or law enforcement, nor do I play such roles on television.