this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
26 points (76.0% liked)

Canada

11920 readers
764 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How many Canadians are killed by gun violence? May 8, 2024 by Wayne Fletcher

In Canada, approximately 250 to 300 people are killed by gun violence each year.

(https://thegunzone.com/how-many-canadians-are-killed-by-gun-violence/)

Motor Vehicle Fatalities on the Rise in Canada – 2024 Data Study Overall Findings:

After three decades of decline, the number of motor vehicle fatalities in Canada went up by 6% in 2022

The number of fatalities is estimated to have reached 2,004 in 2023 and is projected to increase to 2,045 (+2% YoY) by the end of 2024

(https://www.preszlerlaw.com/blog/motor-vehicle-fatalities-on-rise-in-canada/)

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 7 points 11 months ago

Fuck cars too, buddy

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Are you making some kind of weird whataboutist argument here? Road safety and gun safety are not mutually exclusive.

[–] Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They're not mutually exclusive, but cars are much more dangerous than guns. Car violence needs to be addressed before gun violence.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Gun violence in Canada is near exclusively committed with illegal firearms brought up from the states. The limits on long guns for people with PALs does nothing to curb the violence.

Also, lots of specific model gun prohibitions are literally based on how scary a gun looks and not anything to do with things like barrel length or caliber. The FN FAL was recently prohibited because you can fix a bayonet, like all those pesky criminals are doing these days...

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The sks often has a bayonet and is one of the most common guns in Canada.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca -5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Really pushing the disinformation and gaslighting here. Pearl clutching about your weapons designed to kill others under the guise of “hobbies”

Illegal guns are sold from legal owners to criminals. So no they’re not “well intentioned individuals”

There was also an incident where a father used his legal gun to kill his wife, father in law then himself. Wouldn’t have happened if he wasn’t allowed access to guns in the first place.

“78.3% of gun-related domestic homicides in Canada were committed with firearms in the legal possession of licensed owners.”

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Guns-in-family-violence%3A-legal-weapons-pose-the-Alpers/4d9d64178589bce820cf197674f694324921e7d7

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Your source was published in 1995. A lot of regulation has changed over the last 30 years. I wonder what the numbers look like now.

[–] AlmightyTritan@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Am I misunderstanding, or is the article you linked from 1995? I have a feeling a lot has changed with fireams related homicides since then. Especially with the advent of firearms being built out of a bunch of disparate parts.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Few recent Canadian mass shooters had criminal records of any kind, for example, and most obtained their weapons legally (although the Portapique killer did not).

the remaining 20 to 25 per cent of firearm deaths that are not suicide, the data is unclear but appears to follow the Canadian homicide pattern of 31 per cent resulting from family violence. The presence of a gun in a household struggling with heavy drinking, domestic violence and other stresses is inherently intimidating and deadly.

The family violence crisis is not just about deaths; it’s also about the health of the home environment. Thousands of Canadian women and children are forced to seek shelter from violence and abuse every day, while many more live in fear.

The northern and rural regions of all provinces experience significantly higher homicide rates than southern and metropolitan regions.

This tracks with data from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians showing significantly higher gun ownership in northern, rural and Indigenous communities.

So although the overall picture is complex, the dominant themes are remarkably clear. Given the driving patterns of self-harm and gun violence, a phased-in reduction of easy access to weapons is likely to yield significant results over time. This isn’t controversial, as it’s worked for many other countries for decades.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/06/02/opinion/surprising-truth-about-gun-deaths-canada

[–] AlmightyTritan@beehaw.org 0 points 11 months ago

Thank you for providing this information. Your previous link really didn't paint the image I think you wanted to.

I think a lot of the disconnect woth people is that a lot of Canadians are faced with what they perceive as a lot more grave issues endangering peoples lives. And it differs between provinces and even as your links state municipal vs rural areas.

I think because we don't have the constant threat of mass shootings the likes of the USA, those in areas less impacted by fire arm deaths are more apathetic. Or maybe just view it as we've done enough.

Obviously governments should have the capacity to deal with multiple issues at once, but I think people really get caught up in the "why are you worrying about this, when X thing is way more dangerous.". It might come off as whataboutism, and often times it can be, but I think k its just as easy to say that person hasn't been as broadly effected by guns and someone else.

[–] tankfox@midwest.social -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why not ban alcohol instead?

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Here’s more whataboutism. Stay on the topic at hand.

[–] tankfox@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago

I am, family violence is fueled by alcohol. You're right though, families would be safer with a complete ban on both guns and alcohol.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Don't fall for the conservative framing of the issue. If you read the article, these are all sensible commitments that they are requesting, that essentially enshrine further things that actually responsible gun owners would be taking for granted.

[–] AlmightyTritan@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Realistically, if this is about closing loop holes, making laws more cut and dry, sure this probably won't really effect responsible gun owners.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Hopefully Carney is smart enough to tell them to go pound sand

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Hopefully he actually listens to women who face a disproportionate amount of gun violence even from the legal ones.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The group in the article is anti-gun.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

PolySeSouvient's letter, dated last Friday, is copied to others, including Provost, current Public Safety Minister David McGuinty and Rachel Bendayan, a former associate public safety minister.

The group says the new public safety minister should be directed to:

— build an incentive package in the buyback program to encourage early compliance;

— conduct meaningful consultations with stakeholders before draft bills, regulations, directives and public education campaigns are made public;

— immediately launch an investigation into the classification of the SKS, a rifle that has been used in mass and police shootings, to find a solution that protects public safety and respects Indigenous rights to hunt;

— eliminate all loopholes, exemptions and exceptions related to magazine capacity.

We should hastily implement every recommendation.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

I support strict gun control laws, and also have my RPAL.

My question is what specific changes do they want, and what specific weakness does it address?

Are there deficiencies in our laws that could be improved, to reduce firearm injuries and deaths? Let's have at 'em!

Are there specifc guns that are too easy to modify to full-auto? Don't need 'em.

But if we're going to start (continue) banning guns only because they look scary, then stop with the performative BS.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

The Liberals are never going to come for my guns because I don't own military style guns and cosplay as a Gravy Seal.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Watch the gun-owners quickly do damage control in the comments.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The Conservatives use gun control as a wedge issue. Carney was quick to drop the carbon tax because it was politically toxic - it isn't beyond the pale to imagine he'd do the same with gun control. 🤷‍♂️

[–] dermanus@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's the Liberals who have been fiddling with gun laws for 30 years anytime they need a bump in the polls.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Yup. It's a wedge issue. Politicians push on them because to get votes or donations.