How Conservatives enable violent crime.

[Frankfooter]

That's interesting.
Really clean jump at 2015.
What laws were passed right before that which can explain that?
When do the stricter gun laws come in and how do they intersect with these numbers?

Its a clear jump in gun discharges though deaths are pretty constant, or statistically within the same ranges.
I'd wonder if reporting changed or recording of gun discharges changed as much as whether there were more people just firing guns as threats.
Otherwise gun crimes would be constant.

 

[Valcazar]

just before 2015? None that I can think of anyways. Just after 2016. A small handful. Bail being one, and adjusting mandatory minimums from 5 years to 1, for many violent offenses. Notably many firearms offenses.

That's interesting.
I don't remember an adjustment on mandatory minimums back then (I know there has been a bunch of talk about it more recently).

Now I'm curious about what was shuffled around there.

Either way, rates for violent crime have been going up, dramatically since 2014 ( less noticeable since 2007, which at the time if not mistaken was deemed the year of the gun) and ignored. Likewise the presence of street gangs. See also opioids and human trafficking.

Yes, but K.Douglas is specifically saying that firearm laws were tighter in the post 2015 time frame, so that's what I'm asking about.

 

[Valcazar]

Its a clear jump in gun discharges though deaths are pretty constant, or statistically within the same ranges.
I'd wonder if reporting changed or recording of gun discharges changed as much as whether there were more people just firing guns as threats.
Otherwise gun crimes would be constant.

If there was a change in definitions or reporting, it should be noted in the graph (but not everyone is good about that sort of thing).

 

[Not getting younger]

That's interesting.
I don't remember an adjustment on mandatory minimums back then (I know there has been a bunch of talk about it more recently).

Now I'm curious about what was shuffled around there.



Yes, but K.Douglas is specifically saying that firearm laws were tighter in the post 2015 time frame, so that's what I'm asking about.

Some changes have been made to firearms laws that would affect gun owners.

Former Bill C-21: Keeping Canadians safe from gun crime

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)

www.publicsafety.gc.ca

Changes to mandatory sentences

Bill C-5: Mandatory Minimum Penalties to be repealed - Canada.ca

The Government recognizes that there is systemic racism in Canada’s criminal justice system. We have heard Canadians, the courts and criminal justice experts, and seen the evidence of the disproportionate representation of Indigenous peoples, as well as Black Canadians and members of...

www.canada.ca

If there was a change in definitions or reporting, it should be noted in the graph (but not everyone is good about that sort of thing).

Lol, of coarse it’s because of something in reporting and the data is suspect, or StatsCanada don’t know what they are doing. and not because rates are going up. . Ps I know that’s your response, not your stance.

Specific to firearms related crime.

Trends in firearm-related violent crime in Canada, 2009 to 2020

This Juristat article examines the nature and prevalence of firearm-related violent crime in Canada. Trends in firearm-related violent crime between 2009 and 2020 are presented at the national, provincial/territorial and census metropolitan area levels as well as for urban and rural regions...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

 

[Valcazar]

Some changes have been made to firearms laws that would affect gun owners.

Former Bill C-21: Keeping Canadians safe from gun crime

An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)

www.publicsafety.gc.ca

This law came into force in 2022, it can't be used to explain a change from 2014.

Changes to mandatory sentences

Bill C-5: Mandatory Minimum Penalties to be repealed - Canada.ca

The Government recognizes that there is systemic racism in Canada’s criminal justice system. We have heard Canadians, the courts and criminal justice experts, and seen the evidence of the disproportionate representation of Indigenous peoples, as well as Black Canadians and members of...

www.canada.ca

This law came into force in 2022, it can't be used to explain a change from 2014.

Lol, of coarse it’s because of something in reporting and the data is suspect, or StatsCanada don’t know what they are doing. and not because rates are going up. . Ps I know that’s your response, not your stance.

To be fair to Frank, it isn't a crazy question to ask.
As he noted, the discharge rate went up, but not the deaths.
Asking why is reasonable.
A change in reporting would be a possibility.
So would a change in EMT response time or coverage or training.
So would a change in the mix of guns involved.

Since that dashboard isn't put out by StatsCanada, but by the cops, wondering if they aren't noting subtleties like definition changes in a public release isn't outrageous.

Specific to firearms related crime.

Trends in firearm-related violent crime in Canada, 2009 to 2020

This Juristat article examines the nature and prevalence of firearm-related violent crime in Canada. Trends in firearm-related violent crime between 2009 and 2020 are presented at the national, provincial/territorial and census metropolitan area levels as well as for urban and rural regions...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Nice find.

Some interesting stuff in there.

For example, it is worth noting that Toronto had a relatively low rate of firearm-related violent crime, but these firearm-related crimes accounted for a relatively high proportion of all violent crime.

In many provinces, while rates of firearm-related violence were higher in rural areas (particularly in the rural North), violence that involved firearms was proportionally more frequent in urban areas (Table 2).

And, perhaps most pertinent to the conversation above...

For example, part of the increase in victims of firearm-specific violent offences observed in 2015 can be attributed to improvements made in the reporting of victim information for these offences by the Toronto Police Service (TPS). In particular, for incidents involving discharging a firearm with intent, prior to 2013, the TPS did not provide information on victims of this offence. Starting in 2013, the TPS made improvements to their reporting on these incidents which were fully implemented in 2015. While this change in reporting has a notable impact on the increase in the number of victims of firearm-specific violent offences reported, the impact on national rates of firearm-related violent crime overall was relatively small.

So at least in Toronto, the increase in discharge without an increase in lethality may be due quite a bit to their change in reporting in 2015.
(Won't explain everything though, since there are nationwide trends that aren't affected by Toronto reporting issues.)

A lot of the rise overall is due to pointing or discharging a firearm - not using the firearm in another offence.

 

[Not getting younger]

Nice find.

Some interesting stuff in there.





And, perhaps most pertinent to the conversation above...



So at least in Toronto, the increase in discharge without an increase in lethality may be due quite a bit to their change in reporting in 2015.
(Won't explain everything though, since there are nationwide trends that aren't affected by Toronto reporting issues.)

A lot of the rise overall is due to pointing or discharging a firearm - not using the firearm in another offence.

View attachment 270324

Theres a hell of a lot more to StatsCanada than just the TPS…which is/was the point. .and yes I see you mentioned it. regarding discharge. Discharging a firearm doesn’t necessarily translate to deaths. There’s injuries and misses.

also interesting
Fire arms trafficking considered non violent.

Also interesting.
Well a few things.

 

[Valcazar]

Theres a hell of a lot more to StatsCanada than just the TPS…which is/was the point. .and yes I see you mentioned it. regarding discharge. Discharging a firearm doesn’t necessarily translate to deaths. There’s injuries and misses.

also interesting
Fire arms trafficking considered non violent.

Also interesting.
Well a few things.

Who said otherwise?

 

[mandrill]

Stewart presents his point for comedic effect, but it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. The argument that he makes is that the tight gun control states can't stem their disproportionate crime rates because criminals illegally obtain their guns, often from states where gun sales are easier to arrange. However, he neatly jumps over the point that it is not legal in those states to export guns to other states which would prohibit their purchase.

In other words, it takes criminals in red states to sell to criminals in blue states to export guns to the latter.

However, none of that explains why the guns are used FOR MORE CRIME in the blue states. Guns don't make people criminals. Criminals seek out guns. Stewart ignores what the real problem is - there is something fundamentally flawed in the laws/social circumstances of these high crime blue states that politicians are supposed to address, but don't. Instead they focus on the presence of guns.

What do you think is "fundamentally flawed in the laws/social circumstances of these high crime blue states", Dutchie?

 

[Frankfooter]

So at least in Toronto, the increase in discharge without an increase in lethality may be due quite a bit to their change in reporting in 2015.
(Won't explain everything though, since there are nationwide trends that aren't affected by Toronto reporting issues.)

My hunch was correct!
Makes sense, as it seemed odd that discharges jumped up but gun violence didn't.