Some how, This makes me worry...

[Leten Snat]

... About the city I live in. With Canada's Gun laws, I'm wondering how he got all this in to the country.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=0304ad13-727b-4544-9f86-47ec62974b4e&k=2399

Above is a link to a local newspaper.

[Sanis Prent]

Do you even have to ask? You're a port city with access to black market arms from China, Russia, etc and your province has a booming drug trade.

That, and firearms will always be ridiculously easy to smuggle. It isn't like drugs, where you can train sniffers for the task. If a gun hasn't run cordite through it, you'd never know. You could break down receivers, barrels, trigger groups, stocks, and file it away as "machine tools".

This being said, I really don't think there should be much hullabaloo over this guy. Somebody grubbing together some hand-me down Mausers, Stens, and such doesn't much sound like Tony Montana to me. I know Canadians and others can be weird about this, but he just sounds like a collector who's willing to break the law to get what he wants.

[Khendon Sevon]

Yeah, from the range of guns, it's probably a collector.

Besides, a real gun runner would've paid off the cops ;)

[Tony Maxwell]

662 guns? That's a flippin lot of guns. I don't care if he's a collector or Osoma Bin Ladin, that's still a lot of guns. With that many, and if he had enough ammunition, he could arm descent sized militia. I'm glad I don't live in Canada, and at the same time I wished I did so I could amass my own uber weapon cache. :)

[Zem Vymes]

662 is on the high side, but you really aren't gonna be arming a militia with WW2 battle rifles. And if you want to collect guns, just stay in the US. Canada's gun laws suck.

[JMK]

Canada's gun laws suck.

That depends on how you feel about people owning guns. ;)

[Zem Vymes]

I'd imagine from a collector's mindset, I'd be quite correct, which is what I was referring to.

[Park Kraken]

I can't see a gun runner gathering that many firearms at once, even if it is a large order being placed, in which case he would probably deliver in multipule shipments. Has to be a collector, and one eccentric one at that.

[Leten Snat]

The seized weapons also included AK-47s, Uzis, semi-automatic pistols and shotguns.

Some of the weapons had serial numbers scratched off, and others were modified to use silencers. Police also found tear-gas grenades, a blow gun, and knives at the house.


It's the quoted part that had me worried the most. the AK-47s, Uzis, semi-automatic pistols and shotguns, and the fact some of them were modified to use silencers... collector or not, I just think that this is wrong. Even if he was just a collector, the fact that there was that much fire power only a 3.5 hour walk from where I live, I find disturbing. Since they were in a privately owned home, it would not have been hard for criminals to get their hands on them.

As for arming a militia, It would be my guess that a WW2 battle rifle will kill a person just as well as a new one. A bullet is still a bullet, and dead is still dead. Military grade weapons, out of date or not, I think, should not be in the hands of non military personal.

[Khendon Sevon]

I know a lot of people who own semi-automatic pistols and shotguns. That, and I live in Jersey where gun laws are wicked.

If he was planning on doing something, he probably would've before they could catch him. Maybe if he hadn't feared the gun laws they would've noticed an extensive pile up?

Just a thought :)

[Zem Vymes]

So what?

Semi-auto pistols and shotguns are nothing to fret about. I own five semi-automatic shotguns, four are explicitly designed for hunting.

AK's are a grey area. Are they actual AK-47's, or are they Kalashnikov-style rifles like Romanian WASR-10's, SAR-1's, and the like. The media usually sucks horribly at defining these, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt since this is Vancouver, and we'll assume they're Chinese Norinco AKM's, which would be dicey.

Uzi's are another tough issue.

As for silencers, big deal. No threaded silencer is ever going to quiet down the report of a weapon so that it cannot be heard, unless you're talking about a .22 pistol. All a silencer does is to take the bite off the decibels enough to let the operator shoot without needing hearing protection. If there's anything that's ever been so maligned in the media, it's the silencer.

Heck, my AR Carbine is capable of accepting a suppressor on the muzzle. Know why I haven't? Because it's expensive as hell. A really good deterrent to keep crackheads and miscreants from using quality firearms is that they're really hard to afford.

And if you're worried about WW2 battle rifles killing folks on the streets, you should probably know that there's nothing those rifles do that modern deer hunting guns don't do, exept perhaps accept a bayonet on the front end. Heard of any drive-by bayonettings lately?

[Natia Telcontar]

For me its the fact that 662 Guns were owned by a single person and kept in that persons home. In general I have a problem with people owning guns, but I understand there are those that want to own them and I don't say negative things about that. But to have 662 guns to me is just not right, whether you are a collector or not unless the guns have been disabled so they are unable to be used.

Now the fact that some of these guns are illegal as well. Well, I just hope he gets a hefty punishment for it as well as not getting any of the guns back. I don't want somebody owning that kind of firepower so close to where I live.

[Leten Snat]

I for one am glade that the gun laws are as hard as they are. They have kept many people safer. There is no good reason why anybody outside of the military and police(even that is debatable) should need guns in the first place, except for MAYBE a hunting rifle in the backwater towns, and farming comunities.

Also if he was symply a collector, why wouldn't he have been happy with just one of each type of gun?

[Zem Vymes]

For me its the fact that 662 Guns were owned by a single person and kept in that persons home. In general I have a problem with people owning guns, but I understand there are those that want to own them and I don't say negative things about that. But to have 662 guns to me is just not right, whether you are a collector or not unless the guns have been disabled so they are unable to be used.

Now the fact that some of these guns are illegal as well. Well, I just hope he gets a hefty punishment for it as well as not getting any of the guns back. I don't want somebody owning that kind of firepower so close to where I live.

Where's the cut-off? What number is the dividing point between law abiding collector and a criminal? It's that there's some kind of numerical benchmark that separates the two that I highly resent.

Disabled? What? That's about like asking a car collector to fill his garage as he pleases, but get those terrible engine blocks out of them.

The article really doesn't go into which guns in the set were illegal, and that's because the general public neither knows nor cares enough about firearms to demand to know. I'd really like to see an inventory of his collection before passing judgment.

[Zem Vymes]

I for one am glade that the gun laws are as hard as they are. They have kept many people safer. There is no good reason why anybody outside of the military and police(even that is debatable) should need guns in the first place, except for MAYBE a hunting rifle in the backwater towns, and farming comunities.

I'm unconvinced, considering that there are plenty of places that have hefty control laws and still are racked with horrible crime.

As for only military and police needing arms, what? Neither are responsible for the personal protection of the individual.


Also if he was symply a collector, why wouldn't he have been happy with just one of each type of gun?

Why assume so? There are lots of different variations, different armoury editions, and so forth. If I took the base Kalashnikov AK rifle, I could probably own hundreds of these before I'd have one of each variant. Some people are keenly interested in certain makes of weapon.

[Pierce Tondry]

I for one am glade that the gun laws are as hard as they are. They have kept many people safer.

What do you base that perception off of? Your own personal assumptions are poor fodder for debate here.


There is no good reason why anybody outside of the military and police(even that is debatable) should need guns in the first place, except for MAYBE a hunting rifle in the backwater towns, and farming comunities.

It only seems fine until such time as the government becomes oppressive. Then no one is armed to be able to fight back. So long as the right to bear arms remains in effect, one of the things it does is act as a deterrent to dictatorial power creep.


Also if he was symply a collector, why wouldn't he have been happy with just one of each type of gun?

Why would a SW figurine collector only be satisfied with one model of Darth Vader?

[Zem Vymes]

So long as the right to bear arms remains in effect, one of the things it does is act as a deterrent to dictatorial power creep.

FYI they're canadian. Bill of Rights does not apply.

[Park Kraken]

I for one am glade that the gun laws are as hard as they are. They have kept many people safer.

Actually, gun laws can hurt as much as they keep safe. As I'm about to demonstrate.


There is no good reason why anybody outside of the military and police(even that is debatable) should need guns in the first place, except for MAYBE a hunting rifle in the backwater towns, and farming comunities.


So your a person living at home, happily content without owning any guns and not that you can with the laws in place, when a criminal breaks into your home and decides to murder you. And of course, thanks to the black market, he has a gun. What do you do, throw the kitchen knife at him? And when the police show up on the scene, guess who's going to win between the gun and tazers or batons? In this day and age guns are required to defend yourself. I happen to like the laws that are in place now concerning gun control, although I am wary of our state law about it being ok to gun down someone if your a resident and feel threatened.


I've also heard that Mac-9s and -10s are easily confused with Uzis, and that the former are a lot more common and easily attainable than the latter.

[Pierce Tondry]

FYI they're canadian. Bill of Rights does not apply.

I'm ignorant on Canadian law, but I assumed there was some legal provision by which an individual could legally carry a loaded firearm for defense purposes. If that's wrong, smack my face and call me Shirley. (apologies in advance if I am)

[Zem Vymes]

I've also heard that Mac-9s and -10s are easily confused with Uzis, and that the former are a lot more common and easily attainable than the latter.

This is quite true.

[Khendon Sevon]

I know someone who knows someone with a Mac-10 :) I sooo would love to take that to the range and shoot off some rounds.

Going to the range is very enjoyable. That's why I can understand gun collectors/owners.

By the by, I believe the rate of murders with knives go up in areas with higher gun control.

It's really just picking your poison. Hey! Poison! If they outlaw knives (how will be cut our steaks!) then it'll be poison ;)

Or not.

Would be an interesting novel. Just need more of a story.

[Zem Vymes]

I don't think the increase of gun control - increase in crime thing is a worldwide happenstance, but it sure does happen enough in America to make you wonder.

[Leten Snat]

---------------
An Overview of Canadian Gun Laws

Prohibited Firearm: Fully automatic military assault weapons, semi-automatics which can be converted to automatics, along with a few other selected models not suitable for hunting or target shooting, short-barreled handguns, sawed-off shotguns and large capacity magazines. In most cases, the previous owners of these weapons were grandfathered when the prohibitions went into effect, in lieu of financial compensation.

Licensing Requirements: Under the Firearms Act, all firearm owners will require a license to possess or acquire by the year 2001 (renewable every five years). Standard safety checks will be performed to ensure that the individual does not pose a risk to public safety. Under current regulations, spouses and previous spouses with whom the applicant has lived within the last two years. will also be notified of the individuals’ application. If someone with a license becomes violent or commits a crime that would make them illegible to own firearms, the Chief Firearms Officer will be able to revoke the license.

Registration Requirements: Under the new Firearms Act, all firearms must be registered (by the year 2003). New firearms will be registered at their point of sale and imported firearms will be registered at their point of entry. Every registration certificate will have a Firearms Identification Number (FIN). For firearms which do not have a unique identifier (those which have no serial number or have a serial number that, with the other characteristics of the firearm, still doesn’t identify them from every other gun), these are assigned a FIN which is affixed to the frame or received of the firearm. However, according to expert opinion at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at least 80% of firearms can be uniquely identified for the purpose of registration. A range of technologies are available for identifying weapons which lack serial numbers including invisible labeling (often used for identifying other valuables). The duplication or absence of serial numbers is not considered to be a serious impediment to proceeding and will be resolved over time as pressure is brought to bear on manufacturers to ensure their products conform with national standards.

Storage Requirements: Firearms must be stored unloaded, with the ammunition separate. For handguns and other restricted weapons, the firearms must be stored in a locked container, unloaded and made inoperable (trigger locked), with the ammunition stored separately.

Training Requirements: All license applicants must take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and/or pass the test for the course, or show by some other approved means that they know about firearms laws and safety practices.

Penalties:

- Mandatory 4 years for serious offenses with a firearm
- Mandatory 1 year for a stolen weapon
- Criminal sanctions for non-compliance with license or registration but first-time offense is punishable by summary conviction with up to a $2000 fine and 6 months in jail. However, law enforcement have discretionary powers in enforcing the law, depending on the motive.

Legal Uses of a Firearm:

- at a licensed shooting range.
- at a licensed trap line or registered hunting range
- for occupational reasons (Law enforcement, farming, military, ect.)
- for self defense on your personal property, provided the above rules are observed.

[Park Kraken]

So will it be mandatory 4 years for the whole lot, or for each individual weapon found?

[Leten Snat]

I'm not sure if it's per weapon, or if all the weapons are considered a single offence. Really I think that is up for the courts to decide.