Publication - OKB5azEUNHSRyl0fzQNcRd0ZsYD2

The article is titled “New gun law protections target domestic violence, but real prevention must start earlier.” It was originally published on  September 2, 2025 and is authored by Eden Hoffer, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Information and Media Studies & Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University.

In Canada, having a gun in the home is one of the strongest predictors that intimate partner violence (IPV) will turn fatal.
Among intimate partner homicides, 62 per cent of cases involved shotguns and rifles, many of which were legally owned.
It’s clear that reforms to Canadian firearm laws are much needed. Victims of IPV are five times more likely to be killed in cases where a violent partner has access to a gun. Those numbers are even higher when the victim is a racialized woman or lives in a rural area.
Bill C-21
Recognizing the lethal role firearms can play in IPV cases, the Canadian government has included specific measures in Bill C-21, its 2023 overhaul of firearm legislation, to expand restrictions and prohibitions related to IPV, family violence, gender-based violence and domestic violence.
These measures include “red flag” emergency prohibition orders, which allow courts to immediately remove firearms from anyone who may be a danger to themselves or others. Initial orders last up to 30 days, though courts can extend them if needed.
Additionally, since March 2025, officials known as chief firearms officers have been authorized to issue temporary licence suspensions for up to 30 days if an individual is considered a potential risk of harm, including in cases of domestic violence. During this suspension, they can keep their firearms, but cannot use, buy or import them.
While these amendments are a step in the right direction, they must be part of a broader, systemic shift in policy, practice and societal attitudes. Without comprehensive legislative and societal reforms to address IPV, the measures in Bill C-21 risk being little more than a bandage on a gaping wound.
Here are three reasons why Bill C-21’s firearm measures are necessary but will not be sufficient in ending the scourge of IPV:
1. IPV is already a crime
In Canada, IPV has long been criminalized under existing Criminal Code provisions, such as assault and assault with a weapon. Since the mid- to late 1980s, these offences have been primarily addressed through mandatory charging and “no-drop” prosecution policies, which aim to ensure IPV cases are pushed through the legal system — from charging to prosecution — so that perpetrators are brought to justice.
Nevertheless, IPV remains widespread in Canada, with police-reported incidents rising slightly in recent years and evidence indicating that criminalization alone has limited effectiveness in preventing abuse.
This suggests that simply adding new criminal consequences for IPV may have a little impact, because criminalization alone does not address the underlying causes or contributors to violence.
To truly tackle IPV, it must be recognized not only as a crime, but as a human rights violation, public health issue and deeply embedded societal problem.
2. IPV is significantly under-reported
It’s estimated about 80 per cent of spousal violence incidents in Canada are never reported to police.
This is often due to survivors’ fears of increased abuse from their partners if they report it, concerns about not being believed, awareness of the stigma IPV survivors often face, feelings of shame or a lack of trust in police.
As a result, many instances of IPV may never come to the attention of authorities, meaning the legal safeguards provided by Bill C-21 wouldn’t be triggered.
3. Other weapons will likely be used
Without broader reforms and supports, removing a perpetrator’s firearm or restricting access may not prevent fatal violence.
Proactive, systemic interventions that help survivors safely escape abuse before it escalates. Otherwise, even with firearm restrictions in place, perpetrators may obtain firearms illegally or resort to other lethal methods, such as strangulation, using blunt force or stabbing.
What to do?
Proactive policy and practice responses to IPV must reflect its severity and systemic nature, including the cyclical and escalating patterns that often characterize relationships marked by patterns of violence and control.
These reforms should include recognizing femicide as a distinct offence under the Criminal Code rather than treating it as murder or manslaughter.
Canada’s response should also be strengthened by formally acknowledging IPV as a national crisis, reflecting the urgency of the issue. Some provinces, such as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, along with dozens of municipalities in Ontario, have taken the additional necessary step of declaring IPV an epidemic.
Additionally, survivors require trauma- and violence-informed supports, along with increased public awareness and sustained funding for critical services.
These include assistance navigating the legal system, access to safe and affordable housing, and financial support that enables survivors to leave abusive relationships before the violence escalates to a fatal level.
Crucially, policy reform and the creation of new policies in response to IPV must also address the heightened risk period following separation when women who have experienced IPV are especially vulnerable.
Research shows that women face a 75 per cent increase in violence when attempting to leave an abusive relationship — and remain at elevated risk for up to two years afterward.
This underscores the urgent need for long-term, adequately resourced social support systems that consistently prioritize survivor safety and well-being — not only at the point where violence may claim lives.

New gun law protections target domestic violence, but real prevention must start earlier

September 2, 2025 • My Project Name

Read Article

About My Project Name

https://www.mygroup.com