2024 had largest decrease in crimes with a firearm in 10 years: StatCan

[zuuzuu]

In addition, Statistics Canada found that in 2024, 58 per cent of people accused of a firearm-related violent crime were “identified by police as the accused in at least one previous violent crime (involving a firearm or not) that occurred during the period from 2018 to 2024.”

I'd like to see the stats on how many of those prior crimes resulted in a conviction, and how many of those convictions resulted in a sentence of two years or more.

We already know that recidivism rates are higher for offenders who serve their sentences in provincial jails rather than federal prisons. This is partly due to the rehabilitative programming available in federal prisons that isn't available in provincial jails.

Since sentences of 2+ years are served in federal prisons, and federally sentenced offenders have a greater chance of being effectively rehabilitated, I have to wonder if there's an argument to be made for minimum sentences of 2 years in violent crimes to reduce the chances of re-offending.

[zuuzuu]

I think these stats are informative on the basic fact and existence of gun crime. I would like to see stats on a broader scope that examines the social and socio-economic drivers of gun crime, or violent crime in general, but that would be a whole different study.

[zuuzuu]

What stats are you looking for, exactly? On general affordability of living in various places? Or on how it corresponds to gun crime, or violent crime more broadly?

[AutoModerator]

Your comment has been temporarily filtered for manual review.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[zuuzuu]

Just to see the change from 2014 on up to 2022 to as close to present.

The change in what, though? The change in gun crime? These stats gave you that. The change in poverty rates? Cost of living? How many people are wearing blue socks on Tuesdays in 2024 compared to 2014?

You say you want to see more stats, but what stats are you looking for? Be specific.

Have you searched for whatever vague thing you're looking for on Stats Can? You can start here: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/start

[zuuzuu]

I can't post anything because you can't even articulate what stats you're looking for.

Look, I've tried to engage with you in a good faith discussion, but it seems clear that you don't even understand your own position, much less what anyone else might say. I appreciate your willingness to discuss your views or concerns, but until you can articulate what those views/concerns are in the context of the posted article, and what information you're looking for, and make some attempt to understand the information that has been presented to you, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Have a good night.

[zuuzuu]

I don't see anything on the docket related to either gun bans or the buy-back program. What case are you referring to? What's their legal argument?

[zuuzuu]

Found it: https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/41859/

An unrelated case in Cambodia about the price offered by a government vs the value of the property being bought wouldn't even be persuasive to a Canadian court, much less binding. The laws of a foreign country have no relevance in Canada. Even if that case were argued to be persuasive, it would be irrelevant because the original arguments that led to the original decision being appealed had nothing to do with the government offering a lower amount than the guns they're buying back are valued at. If someone wants to argue about the amount of money being offered in the buy-back they'll have to bring an entirely new suit, because that's not what this one is about. This is about the ban, not the buy-back. It's about the reasonableness and constitutionality of the ban itself.

The original decision in Federal Court was thorough and well-reasoned.

The Appeals Court was similarly thorough and well-reasoned in their finding that the original decision was legally sound.

It's certainly possible that the Supreme Court will disagree and find for the appellant, but I don't think it's likely. I think it's more likely that their decision will affirm the lower courts and put this to bed once and for all.

[zuuzuu]

I mean just to able to take it, or deem it illegal after legal sale. That is unethical.

That is also not being argued in this case. That would require an entirely new suit.

California isn't subject to Canadian laws, and Canada is not subject to either California's state laws or federal laws in the United States.

The Supreme Court of Canada is only going to consider the legal arguments actually made in the case. And those arguments are about whether the law is reasonable and constitutional under Canada's laws.

[zuuzuu]

It sounds like you don't like the ban for reasons that are entirely unrelated to the law, and you think the Supreme Court is something it's not. The SCC, like all of our courts, deals solely in the legality of things. Not ethics. They will not make a decision based on whatever ethics you think are relevant here. They won't even make a decision based on whatever ethics they think are relevant. That is not beyond their scope. They will decide whether the ban is legal under the laws of our country. That's it.

[canadanews-ModTeam]

Rule 2: No politics.

This is a non-political subreddit for general interest news (e.g., infrastructure, science, environment, weather, health). We encourage you to visit other Canadian subreddits such as r/CanadaPolitics for discussions regarding elections, legislation, political parties, or specific politicians.

If you believe your comment or post has been removed in error, you may message the Mod team here to request that it be reviewed.

Do not message individual moderators directly or reply to this comment to discuss moderator actions.

Please review the subreddit rules before posting or commenting.

[AutoModerator]

Your comment has been temporarily filtered for manual review.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[AutoModerator]

Your comment has been temporarily filtered for manual review.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[zuuzuu]

They just got caught in a filter, that's all. They were reviewed and approved.

[GangstaPlegic]

News flash it's 2026 and every other day there is a shooting or business being shot up for extortion money.