Firearms, Intimate Partner Violence, and What This New Statistics Canada Report Means for Women’s Safety

Rates of gun-related intimate partner violence rising: StatsCan Tara Carman · CBC News

On July 8, 2026, Statistics Canada released Firearms and Intimate Partner Violence in Canada, 2009 to 2024, the first national analysis focused specifically on the intersection of firearms and intimate partner violence (IPV). While much of the public discussion will likely focus on gun violence, the report tells a much broader story. 

Read through the lens of women’s safety, it is a report about risk, coercive control, separation, femicide, and the urgent need for earlier intervention. For nearly five decades, BWSS has worked alongside women experiencing intimate partner violence. Much of what this report documents statistically reflects what survivors have been telling us for years.

The Most Important Finding Isn’t About Guns Instead it is About Escalating Risk

The headline statistic is that there were 1,096 victims of police-reported firearm-related intimate partner violence in 2024. While significant, that number alone does not capture the real story. The report shows that the rate of firearm-related IPV has increased by 58% compared to the early 2010s, rising much faster than intimate partner violence overall. Since 2020, firearm-related IPV has remained consistently higher than in previous decades, suggesting that while firearms remain involved in a relatively small proportion of all IPV incidents, they are becoming an increasingly significant marker of severe violence and lethality.

For BWSS, this reinforces an essential principle of our work: public safety cannot be measured solely by counting incidents. We must also measure severity and lethality. Firearms transform already dangerous situations into circumstances where the risk of homicide increases dramatically. Systems designed to prevent violence need to identify escalating risk long before a firearm is discharged.

Dating Relationships Are Becoming the New Front Line

One of the report’s most striking findings is the changing nature of firearm-related intimate partner violence. Historically, most firearm-related IPV occurred within marriages or common-law relationships. Today, more than half of victims are harmed by current or former dating partners. This represents a significant shift toward younger relationships and earlier stages of intimate partnerships.

This finding has profound implications for prevention. It means firearm-related coercive control and violence are no longer issues confined primarily to long-term relationships. Schools, universities, youth-serving organizations, and communities must recognize that serious intimate partner violence, including firearm threats, can occur in dating relationships long before couples marry or live together. Prevention efforts must evolve accordingly.

Separation Remains One of the Most Dangerous Times

The report reinforces decades of research and frontline experience demonstrating that separation is one of the highest-risk periods for women experiencing intimate partner violence. Forty-one percent of firearm-related IPV involved former partners, a substantially higher proportion than incidents involving other weapons or physical force alone.

Young Women Face the Highest Rates of Firearm-Related IPV

Among all age groups, women aged 18 to 24 experience the highest rates of firearm-related intimate partner violence. Even more concerning, girls aged 12 to 17 experience firearm-related IPV at rates sixteen times higher than boys of the same age.

These findings highlight the urgent need for prevention efforts that begin well before adulthood. Healthy relationship education, coercive control awareness, early intervention, and youth-focused support services must become core public safety strategies. Young women are disproportionately carrying the burden of firearm-related intimate partner violence, and prevention systems need to respond accordingly.

Firearm IPV Is Never Just Between Two People

One of the report’s lesser-known but extremely important findings is that firearm-related IPV frequently affects multiple victims. More than one in five firearm-related incidents involved additional victims beyond the intimate partner, including children, family members, acquaintances, and strangers. This occurred at three times the rate seen in other forms of intimate partner violence.

Geography Matters

The report finds that firearm-related intimate partner violence occurs at rates nearly three times higher in rural communities than in major urban centres. Northern and rural regions continue to experience the highest rates nationally.

This reflects more than geography. Rural communities often face longer police response times, fewer shelters, limited access to legal services, and greater firearm availability. Women living outside major cities should not face greater danger simply because of where they live. Effective public safety requires equitable investment in rural services, transportation, housing, and crisis response.

The Nature of Firearm Violence Is Changing

For years, rifles and shotguns were the firearms most commonly involved in intimate partner violence. Since 2020, however, handguns have become the most common firearm present in non-fatal firearm-related IPV incidents. Yet rifles and shotguns continue to account for most firearm-related intimate partner homicides.

This changing pattern suggests that firearm-related intimate partner violence is evolving. Understanding which firearms are involved—and in what circumstances—is important not only for firearm policy but also for risk assessment, policing, and prevention. Different forms of firearm access may require different intervention strategies.

The Presence of a Firearm Is Violence

One of the report’s most powerful findings is that 57% of firearm-related IPV victims sustained no physical injury. Some readers may mistakenly conclude that firearms therefore played a limited role. The report makes clear that this would be the wrong conclusion. Firearms are frequently used to threaten, intimidate, control, and terrorize victims without being discharged. The psychological consequences can be profound, including heightened fear and increased symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

This finding aligns directly with BWSS’s understanding of coercive control. Violence cannot be measured solely by visible injuries. A firearm displayed during an argument, pointed without firing, or used as an implied threat fundamentally changes the power dynamics of the relationship. The absence of physical injury does not mean the absence of violence.

Violence Rarely Comes Without Warning

The report also finds that more than half of those accused of firearm-related intimate partner violence had previously been accused of violent crime, while over one-third had previous police contact involving intimate partner violence itself.

This reinforces a reality that BWSS encounters daily: severe violence often develops through a series of escalating warning signs rather than isolated events. Previous violence, stalking, coercive control, breaches of court orders, and repeated police contacts should all trigger meaningful risk assessment and intervention. Public safety depends on recognizing patterns, not simply responding to individual incidents.

Firearm Intimate Partner Violence Is a Femicide Issue

Between 2009 and 2024, 294 people were killed in firearm-related intimate partner homicides in Canada. Ninety-one percent of those killed were women and girls. One in every five intimate partner homicides during this period involved shooting.

These numbers leave little doubt that firearm-related intimate partner violence is fundamentally a women’s safety issue. While firearm violence often receives attention through discussions of gangs or organized crime, this report demonstrates that women continue to face disproportionate risk within intimate relationships. Preventing femicide requires addressing intimate partner violence as a core public safety priority.

Murder-Suicide Demands Greater Attention

Perhaps the most sobering statistic in the report is that in more than half of firearm-related intimate partner homicides, the accused person subsequently died by suicide. This proportion is dramatically higher than for intimate partner homicides involving other methods.

What Systems Don’t Know Can Still Kill

The report notes that police were aware of a history of violence in only 44% of firearm-related intimate partner homicides. Importantly, the authors caution against interpreting this to mean that violence did not exist. Much intimate partner violence—including coercive control—is never reported to police and therefore remains invisible within official records.

For BWSS, this finding reinforces the importance of listening to survivors rather than relying solely on criminal justice records. Systems frequently underestimate danger because coercive control, psychological abuse, and escalating threats often remain hidden until it is too late. Absence of documentation should never be mistaken for absence of risk.

The Questions We Still Need Answered

While this report provides valuable national data, it also reveals important gaps. It cannot tell us how many firearm-related cases involved completed risk assessments, how often firearms were seized and later returned, whether Family Law Act protection orders were enforced, or whether information was effectively shared between police, Crown, and family courts. It cannot tell us how many homicides might have been prevented had earlier interventions occurred.

These are precisely the questions BWSS believes Canada must now answer. Data should not simply describe violence after it occurs. It should help systems prevent it.