You know even better than I do that you're going to have credible and reliable witnesses use the same dataset and draw different conclusions from it.
Data is very much in the eye of the beholder, but using it for explicit partisan purposes just can't be the basis of good criminal law decision-making. We require data, not anecdote, in order to pass criminal laws that have real criminal law consequences.
I gave the example of crime guns as one of the examples of skewed data. It's a term that means whatever the party using wants it to mean. Another one is when we talk about trends in violent crime. Whichever party wants there to be more violent crime will self-select a portion of that data and say that in the past five years, we can see it's increasing. The party that doesn't want it will say, “Look, since the 1970s, we've had a rapid decline in violent crime.”
For example, take handgun crime. It's a great example. You can look at the last StatsCan report and see that from 2009 until 2014, handgun crimes make up the same proportion of firearms violent offences as they do from 2015 until 2020, so when we talk about a rise, I'm very skeptical of the application of the data, not the underlying data itself.