Introduction

Background

The Minister of Public Safety’s mandate letter outlined the Government’s commitment to take action to further reduce firearms-related violence, including by banning assault-style firearms and implementing an amnesty and buy-back program. On May 1, 2020, the Government of Canada announced the prohibition of over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and certain components of some newly prohibited firearms. These models represent nine categories of firearms and two types identified by characteristic. The Department of Justice Canada indicates 26 percent of Canadian households own some sort of firearm.

Public Safety Canada will be developing a national campaign that will focus on raising awareness and educating Canadians and firearm owners of the firearms ban and buy-back program, as well as secure storage requirements. This campaign will also discourage straw purchasing (when a legal Canadian firearm licence-holder buys a gun and then sells it on the black market) through targeted public awareness campaign for individuals and retailers.

Objectives

In support of this multi-year campaign, Public Safety Canada identified the need to obtain data about people’s general awareness, attitudes, and behaviours when it comes to firearms. More specifically, the objective of this research is to set benchmarks of Canadians’ knowledge of the potential risks they face, their perception of the issue, their current level of understanding as well as their willingness to participate in new Government programs.

The data will help understand better our target audiences, establish quantifiable, measurable objectives, and help tailor messaging to each of these segments. This report covers quantitative and qualitative research to meet Public Safety’s objectives:

· Formative quantitative research was conducted to obtain data about people’s perceptions, awareness, and understanding about firearm laws in Canada. The objectives of the research are to establish a quantitative baseline of the state of public opinion on firearms, including awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours. The data provided will help identify and establish target audience segments for a marketing campaign and will help in creating marketing tactics and strategies to inform and protect, as well as educate Canadians about buy-back programs.

· Qualitative focus group testing was conducted to evaluate the campaign’s creative and messaging concepts. This data will help ensure the messaging, tone and overall campaign look-and-feel resonates with target audience groups.

About this report

This report begins with an executive summary outlining key findings and conclusions, followed by a detailed analysis of the survey data and of the qualitative findings. Provided under a separate cover is a detailed set of “banner tables” presenting the results for all questions by subgroup segments. These tables are referenced by the survey question in the detailed analysis.

In this report, quantitative results are expressed as percentages unless otherwise noted. Results may not add to 100% due to rounding or multiple responses. Net results cited in the text may not exactly match individual results shown in the tables due to rounding.

Use of findings of the research. With the information provided by this public opinion research program, it will be possible to develop and implement a public awareness campaign in an effective and efficient manner. Information obtained through public opinion research will allow Public Safety to optimize the impact of its marketing initiatives.

· The baseline (quantitative) research set a benchmark for the campaign, while identifying the current level of awareness on the issue of firearms and support the identification of target audiences. Research findings will inform Canadians and support future policy and communication plans and activities regarding public awareness around the firearms campaign.

· The focus groups tested creative concepts that will guide directions of the campaign’s concept and messaging in order to evaluate if our messaging resonates well with the target audiences.

I. Detailed findings – quantitative phase

A. Personal beliefs and attitudes towards firearms in Canada

1. Proportion of firearms-owning households

One-quarter of Canadian households own at least one firearm.

In this survey, 13 percent report personally owning a firearm, and a similar proportion indicate someone else in their household owns a firearm. Taken together, one quarter (25%) of Canadian households contain at least one firearm, seven in ten say no one owns a firearm, and a small proportion (4%) say they do not know. Men are notably more likely than women to report personally owning a firearm.

Firearm ownership – by gender

QF Do you or does anyone in your household own a firearm of any kind (i.e., handgun, hunting rifle, long gun etc.)?	Total (n=1000)	Men (n=1,031)	Women (n=957)
Net: firearm in household	25%	29%	21%
Self	13%	20%	6%
Someone else in household	13%	10%	16%
No one owns a firearm	72%	67%	76%
Don’t know	4%	4%	3%

Firearm ownership is quite similar by region and by community size. Ownership is higher among younger Canadians: 18 percent under age 45 report personally owning a firearm, compared to 9 percent age 45 and older. Because of this age difference, firearms ownership is also higher among parents/caregivers of children under age 18 than among those in households with no young children (which skew older).

Personal ownership of a firearm is linked to higher sociodemographic status: owning a firearm increases along with household income (from 8% under $40,000 to 19% $150,000 and over) and is highest among those with a post-graduate degree (20%) or who work full-time (19%). Ownership is higher among those born in Canada (14%, vs. 8% born elsewhere).

2. Likelihood of future firearm ownership among non-owners of firearms

Two in ten Canadians who do not personally own a firearm say they are at least somewhat likely to own one in the future; six in ten say this is not at all likely.

Those who do not personally already own a firearm were asked how likely it is they will ever own a firearm in the future. Two in ten say it is very (6%) or somewhat (15%) likely they could be a firearm owner in the future; eight in ten think this is somewhat or very unlikely. Likelihood of owning a firearm in the future is quite similar across the country, but lowest in Quebec (14%) and highest in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (31%).

Likelihood of future firearm ownership – by region

Subsample: those who do not currently own a firearm

Q1 How likely are you to ever own a firearm in the future?	Total (n=1,421)	Atlantic (n=98)	Quebec (n=372)	Ontario (n=515)	Man/ Sask (n=93)	Alberta (n=148)	BC (n=195)
Net: likely	21%	24%	14%	20%	31%	25%	24%
Very likely	6%	7%	4%	6%	10%	5%	6%
Somewhat likely	15%	17%	11%	14%	21%	20%	18%
Net: unlikely	79%	76%	86%	80%	69%	75%	76%
Not very likely	20%	23%	19%	19%	20%	22%	18%
Not at all likely	60%	53%	66%	61%	49%	53%	58%

Echoing the patterns for current ownership, being at least somewhat likely to own a firearm in the future is higher among younger Canadians (32% under age 45, vs. 12% age 45 and over) and men (25%, vs. 17% of women). The same socioeconomic pattern is seen, being higher among those with household incomes of at least $80,000 and with a post-graduate degree. Being at least somewhat likely to own a firearm is notably higher if there is someone else in the household who owns a firearm (57%, vs. 14% with no firearm in the home). Linked to age, likelihood to own a firearm in the future is higher among parents (32% vs. 17% with no child under 18 at home), especially if there is already a firearms owner in the home (69%).

3. Reasons for owning a firearm

The main reasons for owning a firearm are hunting for sport and target shooting.

Those with a firearm in the household were asked to indicate the main reason why this firearm is owned. They were given four potential reasons and could write in additional reasons. The top two reasons are hunting for sport and target shooting for sport, both mentioned by just under half. Two in ten report a firearm collector; 13 percent selected hunting as part of Indigenous tradition or treaty right. Other mentions provided, each by under five percent, include protection/self-defence, having inherited a firearm, or hunting for food.

Reasons for owning a firearm

Subsample: those with a firearm in the household

Q3 People own firearms for many different reasons. Which of the following are the main reasons you own a firearm?	Total (n=772)
Hunting for sport	46%
Target shooting for sport	45%
Firearms collector	19%
Hunting as part of Indigenous tradition or treaty right	13%
Safety/protection/self defence	4%
Inheritance/given to me by father	2%
Hunting for food	2%
Other reason	1%
Nothing/prefer not to say	5%

Hunting for sport as the main reason for ownership is higher among the following groups:

· Small town/rural residents (54%)

· Firearms owners (51%, vs. 41% who are not the firearm owner in the household)

· Born in Canada (49%, vs. 22% born elsewhere)

Target shooting as the main reason for ownership is higher among the following groups:

· B.C. (59%)

· Urban (48%) and suburban residents (51%)

· Men (50% vs. 39% women)

· Firearms owners (49%, vs. 41% who are not the firearm owner in the household)

· Those likely to own a firearm in future (52%)

· Post-graduate degree (58%)

4. Familiarity with requirements around storage practices for firearms

Two-thirds of current owners are very familiar with firearms storage requirements.

Those with a firearm in the household currently and those who say they are at least somewhat likely to own one in the future were asked how familiar they are with the requirements around storage practices. Over eight in ten of this group say they are very or somewhat familiar with this, with current firearms owners being the most likely to be very familiar (68%).

Familiarity with firearms storage practice requirements – by firearms ownership/intention

Subsample: those with a firearm in the household or likely to own a firearm in the future

Q4 How familiar are you with the requirements around storage practices for firearms? Are you…?	Total (n=963)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Net: familiar	83%	98%	75%
Very familiar	41%	68%	26%
Somewhat familiar	42%	30%	49%
Net: not familiar	17%	2%	25%
Not very familiar	13%	1%	22%
Not at all familiar	4%	1%	4%

Being at least somewhat familiar with storage requirements is higher in the Atlantic region (94% familiar overall) and among urban dwellers (87%), men (88% vs. 77% of women), and among parents of children under age 18 (86%), especially those who have a firearm in the household (93%, 53% very familiar). There are no notable patterns by household income or level of education, but familiarity is higher among those born in Canada.

5. Familiarity with regulations around the ownership, licensing, transportation and use of firearms

Four in ten Canadians, and almost all firearms owners, have at least some familiarity with firearms regulations

Canadians, regardless of their firearms ownership status, were asked how familiar they are with regulations around the ownership, licensing, transporting and use of firearms in Canada. Just over four in ten say they are at least somewhat familiar, with only one in seven being very familiar.

Almost all current owners of firearms have at least some familiarity, with over six in ten saying they are very familiar. Familiarity is understandably lowest among those in households with no firearms, and those who are unlikely to own a firearm in the future.

Familiarity with firearms regulations - by firearms ownership/intention

Q5 There are a variety of regulations around the ownership, licensing, transporting and use of firearms in Canada. How familiar are you with these firearms regulations?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Net: familiar	44%	96%	71%
Very familiar	15%	63%	23%
Somewhat familiar	29%	33%	48%
Net: not familiar	56%	4%	29%
Not very familiar	29%	3%	23%
Not at all familiar	27%	1%	6%

Familiarity with firearms regulations is generally similar across the country, except somewhat lower in Quebec (37% at least somewhat familiar), where likelihood to own a firearm in the future is lowest. As with current ownership, men express more familiarity than do women (53% vs. 36%), and younger Canadians are more likely than their older counterparts to be familiar with these regulations to some extent (53% under age 45, vs. 37% age 45 and over). The same age-related pattern is also seen with parent/guardian status, with familiarity of parents (56%) being higher than non-parents (39%). Also as seen with current firearms ownership, familiarity with firearms regulations is linked to the higher sociodemographic strata (from 38% net familiar with high school or less, up to 50% with a post-graduate degree, and 38% with household incomes under $60,000 vs. 51% with incomes of $60,000 or more).

6. Opinion about strictness of Canadian firearms regulation

Canadians largely believe the current regulation of firearms either strikes the right balance or is not strict enough.

Three-quarters of Canadians think the current regulation of firearms either strikes the right balance (33%) or is not strict enough (41%). Only ten percent think regulations are too strict, and 17 percent have no opinion. It is notable that, even among current firearm owners, only one quarter think regulations are too strict, the same proportion thinking regulations are not strict enough.

Opinion about strictness of firearms regulation in Canada - by firearms ownership/intention

Q6 Would you say that the regulation of firearms in Canada is too strict, not strict enough or strikes the right balance?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Not strict enough	41%	26%	26%
Strikes the right balance	33%	46%	42%
Too strict	10%	25%	21%
Don’t know	17%	3%	11%

Saying firearms regulations strike the right balance is generally similar by region. Opinion is linked to self-assessed familiarity with firearms regulations (which in turn is linked to firearm ownership): those very familiar are the most likely to say these regulations strike the right balance (47%, decreasing to 18% who are not at all familiar). Those very familiar with regulations are the most likely to say they are too strict (23%), and the least likely to say they are not strict enough (28%).

The following groups are most likely to think the current regulations are not strict enough:

· Quebec (43%) and Ontario residents (43%)

· Urban and suburban dwellers (43%, vs. 33% in small town/rural communities)

· Older Canadians (47% age 45 and over)

· University graduates (48% with undergraduate degree)

The following groups are most likely to think the current regulations strike the right balance:

· Younger Canadians (45% age 18 to 29)

· Households with a firearm owner (46%, including 41% parents in this group)

7. Opinions about firearms in Canada

While majorities of Canadians feel governments need to step up their role in protecting communities against gun-related violence and that the availability of firearms is a safety threat, many also agree using firearms to hunt for food or sport should be preserved, and gun ownership for these purposes is acceptable.

Canadians, including firearms owners themselves, have conflicted views on firearms in our society. Three-quarters, including 63 percent of current owners, agree governments should play a bigger role in protecting communities from gun-related violence, and around half each feel availability of firearms is a threat to our safety, that banning firearms in their community would make it safer, and are personally uncomfortable with people using firearms for any reason. Even among firearm owners, significant minorities agree with these sentiments. At the same time, two-thirds majorities of Canadians also agree using firearms to hunt for food and for recreational hunting is a way of life that needs to be preserved, and six in ten agree there is nothing wrong with someone owning a gun for recreational purposes. Firearms owners and intenders are the most likely to agree firearms regulation is pointless because criminals will always be able to get them.

Net agreement (strongly + somewhat) with firearms statements - by firearms ownership/intention

Q7 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your personal beliefs about gun ownership in Canada	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Our governments need to play a bigger role in protecting communities from gun-related violence.	73%	63%	60%
Using firearms to hunt for food is part of a way of life for many Canadians and this needs to be preserved.	64%	80%	74%
Use of firearms for hunting, recreational /sport shooting is a past-time for many Canadians – esp. in rural areas. This needs to be preserved.	62%	80%	74%
There is nothing wrong with someone owning a gun for recreational or competitive sport shooting.	59%	82%	77%
The availability of firearms in Canada is a threat to our safety	53%	40%	34%
If we banned firearms in my community, it would make my community safer	49%	37%	32%
I am personally uncomfortable with people using firearms for any reason.	47%	31%	30%
There is no point trying to regulate firearms since criminals will always find ways to access them	44%	60%	58%

As in other results, the link between firearms ownership and familiarity with regulations means that, in general, agreement with anti-firearm statements increases as level of familiarity with firearms regulations decreases, and the opposite is seen for pro-firearms statements: those most familiar with regulations are the most likely to agree using firearms for hunting or sport is acceptable or worth preserving. Although fewer agree, it should be noted that majorities of those who say they are not at all familiar with firearms regulations still agree to some extent with those pro-firearms statements.

Age continues to be a factor, with older Canadians (age 45 and over) being more likely than younger ones to agree with several statements, both pro- and anti-gun (agreement other statements is similar by age):

· Our governments need to play a bigger role in protecting communities from gun-related violence.

· Using firearms to hunt for food is part of a way of life for many Canadians and this needs to be preserved.

· The use of firearms for hunting, recreational and sport shooting is a past-time for many Canadians - especially those living in rural areas. This needs to be preserved.

· The availability of firearms in Canada is a threat to our safety.

Except for the statement that governments need to play a bigger role in protecting communities, which has similar agreement across the country, agreement with pro-firearms statements is higher in the Atlantic, Manitoba/Saskatchewan and Alberta than in BC, Quebec, and Ontario, where agreement with anti-firearms statements tends to be higher. A similar pattern is seen for community size; those in urban or suburban communities are among the most likely to agree with negative statements about firearms, while small town/rural residents are the most likely to agree with pro-firearms statements.

There are some sociodemographic differences as well. Men are more likely that women to agree with positive firearm statements, but still, majorities of women also agree with these. Women are more likely than men to agree that governments need to play a bigger protective role, or that they are personally uncomfortable with people using firearms for any reason. Those born outside Canada and those with higher levels of education are the most likely to agree with the more anti-firearms statements.

8. Extent to which firearms-related violence is a threat to public safety in the local community

Just under half of Canadians feel firearms-related violence poses at least some threat to public safety in their community.

About half of Canadians (47%) feel firearms-related violence is a threat to public safety in their local community. Another 47 percent feel this is not much of a threat or not a threat at all, including slim majorities of those who currently own or might own firearms in the future.

Threat posed to public safety by firearms-related violence in
local community - by firearms ownership/intention

Q8 Thinking about your local community, to what extent do you think firearms-related violence is a threat to public safety? Is it…?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Net: Threat	47%	41%	46%
A major threat	15%	15%	11%
Somewhat of a threat	32%	26%	35%
Net: Not a threat	47%	56%	51%
Not much of a threat	34%	35%	34%
Not a threat at all	13%	21%	17%
Don’t know	6%	2%	3%

That firearms-related violence poses at least some threat to community safety is highest in Ontario (56%) and similar elsewhere (from 34% to 48%). It is highest in urban communities (56%) and decreases as size of community decreases (down to 20% in small town/rural locations). Thinking this is lower among those age 60 and over (40%) than younger Canadians (50%), and, related to age, higher among parents of children under age 18 (53%, vs. 44% of non-parents). There is no notable difference by household income, but feeling it is at least some threat is higher among those with at least a university degree (55%) than those with less education (44% high school or less, 41% college/technical), and it is higher among those born outside of Canada (55%). That firearms violence is a threat is generally similar b self-professed regulations knowledge, but those with higher familiarity are more likely than those with no familiarity to feel this type of violence is not a local community safety threat.

9. Opinions about Government of Canada performance in bringing in measures to address firearms-related violence

One third of Canadians say the Government of Canada does a good or excellent job when it comes to bringing in measures to combat gun-related violence; one-third think its performance is fair, and two in ten think it does poorly.

One third of Canadians feel the Government of Canada does a good or excellent job when it comes to bringing in measures to combat gun-related violence. Another third gives the government a “fair” rating, and 21 percent rate its efforts as poor. One in ten are unable to say. Current (49%) and prospective firearms owners (42%) are more likely to the government a positive score than does the public at large.

Rating of GOC performance in addressing gun-related violence
- by firearms ownership/intention

Q9 How would you rate the performance of the Government of Canada when it comes to bringing in measures to address gun-related violence?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Net: Excellent/good	34%	49%	42%
Excellent	7%	18%	9%
Good	28%	31%	33%
Net: Fair/poor	54%	48%	53%
Fair	33%	28%	32%
Poor	21%	20%	21%
Don’t know	11%	3%	5%

Saying the government does an excellent or good job is similar across most of Canada but is highest in the Atlantic region (46%). Opinion is similar by community size, gender, and household income; giving a good/excellent rating is highest among those with a post-graduate degree (47%) and those born outside of Canada (40%).

Linked to firearms ownership, saying the government does a good or excellent job is highest among those who say they are very familiar with firearms regulations, and decreases as familiarity decreases. While rating the government as at least good is similar by perceived threat to local public safety, those who think firearms violence is a major threat are the almost likely to rate the government’s performance on this file as excellent (19%, vs. 3%-8% of others).

10. If various categories of firearms should be legal or illegal in Canada

A strong eight in ten majority of Canadians, including two-thirds of firearms owners, think assault-style weapons should be illegal in most or all cases, and around six in ten (and half of owners) think the same of handguns. A slim majority thinks rifles, and shotguns should be legal.

Eight in ten Canadians think “assault-style” firearms should be illegal in all or most cases, and almost two-thirds (63%) think handguns should be illegal. When it comes to rifles and shotguns, four in ten think these should be illegal, but just over half (55%) think they should be legal. Two-thirds majorities of current and potential firearms owners say assault-style weapons should be illegal in most or all cases; they are also less likely than the general public to think handguns should be illegal, and when it comes to rifles and shotguns, strong seven in ten majorities of these groups think they should be legal in most or all cases.

Should categories of firearms be legal or illegal in Canada? - by firearms ownership/intention

Q10 As you may know there are a variety of categories of firearms in use in Canada. To what extent do you think the personal possession of each of the following types of firearms should be legal or illegal?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
“Assault-style” firearms
Net: Illegal	81%	67%	67%
Illegal in all cases	60%	45%	34%
Illegal in most cases	22%	23%	33%
Net: Legal	13%	30%	28%
Legal in most cases	9%	20%	21%
Legal in all cases	4%	10%	7%
Don’t know	6%	2%	5%
Handguns
Net: Illegal	63%	49%	41%
Illegal in all cases	28%	16%	13%
Illegal in most cases	35%	33%	29%
Net: Legal	30%	48%	52%
Legal in most cases	23%	31%	38%
Legal in all cases	7%	16%	14%
Don’t know	7%	3%	7%
Rifles and shotguns
Net: Illegal	39%	28%	25%
Illegal in all cases	16%	12%	8%
Illegal in most cases	23%	16%	17%
Net: Legal	55%	71%	69%
Legal in most cases	40%	42%	41%
Legal in all cases	15%	29%	29%
Don’t know	7%	1%	6%

Opinions about the legality of these types of firearms are generally similar by region, except Quebec residents are the most likely to think handguns should be illegal in most or all cases (72%), and Ontarians (45%) and BC residents (42%) are the most likely to think this of rifles and shotguns. Community size plays a role, with those in small town and rural communities being the least likely to think rifles and shotguns should be illegal (24%, vs. 42% elsewhere).

Age and gender are also factors. Those age 45 and over are the most likely to think assault-style firearms should be illegal (88%, vs. 73% under age 45), and there is a similar pattern with handguns (69% 45+, vs. 56% under 45). However, those under age 45 are more likely than their older counterparts to think rifles and shotguns should be illegal (45%, vs. 34% of older Canadians). Men and women are equally likely to think assault-style weapons should be illegal, but women are somewhat more likely than men to think this about handguns (66%, vs. 61% of men) or rifles and shotguns (43%, vs, 34%). Those born outside of Canada are more likely than those born here to think rifles and shotguns should be illegal (54% vs. 36%), but both groups have similar opinions about the other types of firearms.

Thinking each of these types of firearms should be illegal is lowest among those who indicate they are very familiar with firearms regulations in Canada, and highest among those not very or at all familiar. As well, that each should be illegal is highest among those who think firearms violence is a major threat to public safety in their community; thinking each should be illegal decreases along with a decrease in perceived severity of this threat.

B. Child safety and firearms

The following question was asked of the three in ten Canadians (29%) who identified as being the parent or primary caregiver of a child under the age of 18. For simplicity we refer to this group as “parents.” Subsequent questions were addressed to those parents who indicated there is a firearm in the home (37% of parents, or 11% of the total).

1. If current use/availability of firearms in Canada poses a threat to the safety of own children

Six in ten parents feel the use and availability of firearms poses a threat to their own children – whether or not there is a firearm in the home.

Six in ten parents think the current use and availability of firearms poses a threat to the safety of their own children. This is the case whether or not there is a firearm in the home.

If own children’s safety is threatened by the current use and availability of firearms

Subsample: Parents/primary caregivers of a child under the age of 18

Q12 Do you think the current use and availability of firearms in Canada poses a threat to the safety of your own children?	Total Parents (n=708)	Parent, firearm in household (n=383)	Parent, no firearm in household (n=302)
Yes	61%	59%	61%
No	39%	41%	39%

That firearms pose a threat to their child is highest in Ontario (68%), but statistically similar elsewhere (from 51% in the Atlantic to 63% in B.C.) This belief is highest among those living in urban communities (69%) and decreases along with community size (to 45% small town/rural). There is no gender difference. There is no clear pattern by household income, but this belief is higher among parents with university education (66%) than those with high school or less (53%). Thinking their child is at risk from firearms is higher among those not born in Canada (72%), those who think firearms violence is a major threat to community safety (88%), and those who think the government is doing an excellent job on gun violence (73%).

2. Talking to children about firearms safety

Three-quarters of parents I households with a firearm have talked to their child about firearms safety.

Parents with a firearm in the household were asked if they have ever talked to their child(ren) about firearms safety. Three-quarters have done so (note the age of the child was not asked, so it may be other children are too young for this discussion).

If have ever talked to child about firearms safety

Subsample: Firearms-owning households with children

Q13 Have you ever talked to your child(ren) about firearms safety?	Parent, firearm in household (n=383)
Yes	75%
No	25%

Parents are most likely to have talked to their child about firearms if they live in an urban community (80%) and if they themselves are the firearms owner (81%). There are no differences by household income, and no clear pattern by level of education. Having talked to a child about firearms safety is highest among those very familiar with firearms regulations (84%) and those who rate the government’s performance on gun violence as excellent (83%) or good (81%).

3. Level of concern about children accessing improperly secured firearms

Two-thirds of parents with a firearm in the home are concerned to some degree their children could access improperly secured firearm and endanger themselves.

Two-thirds of parents with a firearm in the home are either very (33%) or somewhat (32%) concerned their child might access an improperly secured firearm and endanger themselves.

If concerned about children accessing improperly secured firearms

Subsample: Firearms-owning households with children

Q14 How concerned are you that your children could ever have access to improperly secured firearms and endanger themselves?	Parent, firearm in household (n=383)
Net: Concerned	65%
Very concerned	33%
Somewhat concerned	32%
Net: Not a threat	35%
Not very concerned	18%
Not concerned at all	17%

Being concerned to some degree is higher in Quebec (76%) and Ontario (72%) and those in urban communities (74%). Concern also higher among younger parents (71% age 18 to 29. A 68% age 30 to 44, vs. 47% age 45 to 59). This concern is highest among those who think firearms violence is a major threat to community safety (89%), and those who think the government is doing an excellent (79%) or good (81%) job on this issue.

C. Awareness of firearms issues, laws, and regulations

1. Organizations promoting firearms safety in Canada

The vast majority of Canadians (and nine in ten firearms owners) are not able to name an organization that has advertised or promoted awareness of issues around firearms safety.

Canadians were asked if they are aware of any groups in Canada promoting awareness of firearms safety (note that no names of organizations were provided, so mentions are top of mind). Only four percent indicate any awareness. Being able to cite at least one organization involved in awareness of firearms safety is low across the country and across subgroups, with firearms owners and those very familiar with firearms regulations being the most likely to be able to name something at 11 percent each.

Only very small proportions cite any one organization, and the Government of Canada/Public Safety is not mentioned by more than two people. Among the other mentions made largely by firearms owners are local gun clubs, hunter, and angler groups such as Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and wildlife/conservation associations (including Ducks Unlimited).

Organizations in Canada advertising or promoting awareness of firearms safety issues
- by firearms ownership/intention

Q15 Are you aware of any groups or organizations in Canada that have advertised and/or promoted awareness of issues around firearms safety? IF YES, Which ones?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)
No, have not heard	96%	89%
NRA	<1%	0%
NFA/National Firearm Association	<1%	1%
Firearms Safety Course	<1%	1%
CCFR/Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights	<1%	1%
Coalition of Gun Control	<1%	<1%
FSESO	<1%	1%
Other	2%	5%
DK/NA/don't recall the name	1%	2%

2. Unprompted awareness of new Government of Canada measures to address firearms-related violence

Only very small proportions of Canadians are able to name any recently announced Government of Canada measures to address gun-related violence top-of-mind, without prompting.

Canadians were then asked if they had heard of any new measures announced recently by the Government of Canada to address gun-related violence (no measures were provided, so mentions are top of mind). Nine in ten were unable to think of any such measure top-of-mind. Six percent mention a ban on assault weapons (including 9% of firearms owners); one percent or fewer mention anything else.

Top-of-mind new Government of Canada measures to address firearms-related violence
- by firearms ownership/intention

Q16 Have you heard of any new measures the Government of Canada has announced lately to address gun-related violence?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Ban on assault rifles/weapons/making owning shotguns and rifles illegal	6%	9%	7%
Strict firearms laws/new gun control/regulations	1%	2%	1%
Adding more firearms to prohibited list/outlaw certain types of guns	1%	2%	1%
Buy back program	1%	<1%	1%
(New) gun registry	<1%	<1%	0%
Taking away registered guns/rifles	<1%	1%	1%
Other	1%	3%	1%
DK/NA	1%	2%	2%
No, nothing	89%	82%	87%

A ban on assault-type weapons is the most familiar measure, across the country and all subgroups. It is a small minority, but somewhat higher among, those age 60 and over (9%), men (9% vs, 4% of women), those with a bachelor’s degree (9%), and those who are very or somewhat familiar with firearms regulations (9%).

3. Prompted awareness of new Government of Canada measures to address firearms-related violence

Few Canadians have heard a lot about any recent federal government measures to address firearms-related violence, but most have heard at least something about banning assault-style weapons or the buy-back program.

Canadians were shown brief descriptions of six Government of Canada measures addressing firearms-related violence and asked how aware they are of each. Majorities indicate having heard at least a bit about banning assault-style weapons and the buy-back program. Two in ten have heard a lot about banning of assault-style weapons, but one in ten or fewer have heard a lot about each of the other initiatives. (Note that because the name of The Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence is basically just descriptive, awareness may in fact be overstated).

In contrast, six in ten or more of firearms owners have heard at least a bit about each initiative when prompted, and they are notably more likely than the general public to have heard a lot about each.

Prompted awareness of GOC measures to address firearms-related violence - by firearms ownership/intention

Q17 There has been some discussion of several new federal government policies to address firearms-related violence. To what extent have you heard about each of these policies? Have you…?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Banning all “assault-style” firearms
Heard a lot about this	21%	41%	25%
Heard a bit about this	44%	44%	46%
Not heard about this at all	35%	16%	29%
A “buy-back” program whereby the government will provide compensation for the collection of certain banned firearms
Heard a lot about this	13%	30%	19%
Heard a bit about this	45%	48%	48%
Not heard about this at all	42%	22%	33%
The Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence
Heard a lot about this	9%	23%	12%
Heard a bit about this	36%	49%	48%
Not heard about this at all	55%	28%	39%
New rules on the secure storage of firearms
Heard a lot about this	9%	27%	15%
Heard a bit about this	30%	39%	41%
Not heard about this at all	61%	34%	44%
Cracking down on “straw purchasing” (when someone with a firearm license buys a gun and then sells it to someone who cannot own a gun)
Heard a lot about this	8%	25%	15%
Heard a bit about this	25%	38%	38%
Not heard about this at all	67%	37%	47%
Giving municipalities/communities the right to further restrict or prohibit handguns
Heard a lot about this	8%	21%	11%
Heard a bit about this	25%	40%	40%
Not heard about this at all	68%	39%	49%

Awareness of these measures is largely similar across the country and across other subgroups. Having heard a lot about the banning of all assault-type weapons is slightly lower in Quebec than in other provinces.

There are also some demographic differences to note. Men are more likely than women to say they have heard a lot about each initiative, but it is still a minority in all cases. Other than the banning of assault weapons, having heard a lot about the other measures is higher among, those under age 45; related to this, parents are more likely than those without a child under age 18 to have heard a lot about each measure. There are no clear patterns by education or household income, and no difference by location of birth (Canada or elsewhere).

As might be expected, having heard a lot about each initiative is highest among those who are very familiar with firearms regulations or who rate the government’s performance on firearms violence as excellent, and, other than the ban of assault-style weapons (where results are similar), having heard a lot is higher about each measure among those who think firearms violence poses a major threat to public safety in their community.

4. Support for, or opposition to, proposed measures to address firearms-related violence

Canadians largely support each of the new measures to address firearms related violence in Canada

Majorities of seven in ten or more say they at least somewhat support each of the six new GOC measures to address firearms-related violence. Overall support is fairly similar for four of the initiatives, although again it should be noted the Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence, as a purely descriptive name, may be enjoying greater consideration than if specific details were known. Support is still the majority, but slightly lower, for the buy-back program and additional municipal rights to restrict or prohibit handguns. Overall support for each of these is generally fairly similar to the general public among firearms owners, although owners are less likely to express strong support. The biggest exception is the initiative to give additional handgun-restriction authority to municipalities, about which firearms owns are notably less supportive than is the public.

Position on measures to address firearms-related violence in Canada - by firearms ownership/intention

Q18 To what extent would you support or oppose each of these measures to address firearms related violence in Canada?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
The Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence
Net: Support	82%	80%	68%
Strongly support	56%	45%	38%
Banning all “assault-style” firearms
Net: Support	82%	71%	67%
Strongly support	62%	49%	36%
Cracking down on “straw purchasing” (when someone with a firearm license buys a gun and then sells it to someone who cannot own a gun)
Net: Support	81%	78%	71%
Strongly support	58%	48%	37%
New rules on the secure storage of firearms
Net: Support	79%	72%	68%
Strongly support	46%	31%	25%
A “buy-back” program whereby the government will provide compensation for the collection of certain banned firearms
Net: Support	73%	70%	58%
Strongly support	39%	33%	25%
Giving municipalities/communities the right to further restrict or prohibit handguns
Net: Support	70%	57%	52%
Strongly support	38%	26%	21%

Overall support for these measures is very comparable across the country, and by community size. There is an age difference, with support each measure being higher among those over age 45 than among younger Canadians, although majorities of the latter are still supportive. Opinion is similar by gender, except women are more likely than men to support banning all assault-style weapons (85% vs. 79%). There are no clear patterns by household income or education, or country of birth. Support is highest among those who think firearms violence poses a major public safety threat in their community, and decreases with perceived threat, being lowest among, but still majorities of, those who do not think it poses a threat at all.

5. Assessment of overall effectiveness of measures to address firearms-related violence

Three-quarters think the federal government’s new measures against firearms-related violence will be at least somewhat effective

Considered as a whole, three-quarters of Canadians think the federal government’s new measures will be at least somewhat effective in reducing gun violence in Canada, but relatively few of these - 15 percent - believe they will be very effective. Firearms owner are somewhat more likely than the general public – one-quarter – to think the measures will be very effective, but net effectiveness is similar for owners and non-owners.

Perception of effectiveness of measures to address firearms-related violence in Canada - by firearms ownership/intention

Q19 How effective do you think these measures as a whole are or will be in reducing the incidence of gun violence in Canada? Do you think these measures are or will be…?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
Net: Effective	75%	72%	69%
Very effective	14%	26%	15%
Somewhat effective	60%	46%	54%
Net: Not effective	25%	28%	31%
Not very effective	19%	20%	21%
Not effective at all	6%	8%	10%

Thinking these measures will be at least somewhat effective is lowest in Alberta (67%) and Quebec (68% and highest in Ontario (79%) and the Atlantic region (83%). That they will be effective is higher among urban dwellers (77%) than those in small town or rural communities (69%). There is an age divide, with those under age 45 being more likely to think these measures will work (79%) than those age 45 and over. (71%).

That the new measures will be effective is similar by household income, but those with a university degree are more convinced of this than are those with less education. Optimism is also somewhat higher among those born outside of Canada (81% vs. 73% born in Canada). That these measures will work is higher among those who this firearms violence is a major or somewhat of a threat to this community’s safety than those who do not see this as a threat and thinking they will be effective is highest among those who think the government is doing an excellent (89%) or good (91%) job on gun-related violence and decreases as opinion decreases (down to 54% who think the government is doing a por job).

6. Firearms owner awareness of proposed federal government programs and measures dealing with firearms

Nine in ten firearms owners have hears at least a bit about the proposed measures dealing with firearms; one-third have heard a lot.

Among firearms owners, one third claim to have heard a lot about these proposed government policies to deal with firearms, and another 57 percent have heard a bit about them. One in ten have not heard anything.

Awareness of proposed GOC programs and measures dealing with firearms

Subsample – Firearms owners

Q20 As someone who currently owns firearms, how much had you heard about these proposed federal government programs and measures that deal with firearms?	Firearm owners (n=579)
Had heard a lot	32%
Had heard a bit	57%
Not heard about them at all	11%

The extent to which people have heard about the new measures is similar across the country. Those living in urban areas are the most likely to have heard a lot (37%, vs. 24% in small towns/rural areas)). Younger firearms owners are much more likely to be aware of these measures (41% under age 45 have heard a lot, vs. 19% age 45 and over). Linked to age, firearms owners who are parents are more likely than those who are not to have heard a lot about these initiatives (45% vs. 21%). While having heard a lot is similar by household income, those with lower incomes are more likely than those with higher incomes to say they have not heard anything at all. Similarly, those with high school or less education are more likely than others to have heard just a bit, or nothing at all.

Having heard a lot about these measures is highest among firearms owners who are very familiar with regulations (41%), to thinking firearms-related violence is a major threat the safety in the community (63%), and to giving the federal government an excellent rating on the gun violence file (64%).

7. Ownership of newly prohibited types of firearms

One quarter of firearms owners indicate they own one of the newly prohibited types of firearms

One quarter of firearms owners say they own one of the newly prohibited types of firearms that would qualify for the “buy back” program, and another one in ten are unsure and think they might.

Currently own one of the newly prohibited types of firearms which would qualify for the “buy-back” program

Subsample – Firearms owners

Q21 Do you currently own any of the newly-prohibited types of firearms which would qualify for the federal government’s “buy back” program?	Firearm owners (n=579)
Yes	26%
No	59%
Unsure	13%
Prefer not to say	2%

Admitting to owning one of these types of weapons is higher among the following groups:

· Ontario residents (30%)

· Urban dwellers (32%)

· Under age 45 (35%)

· Parents of a child under age 18 (40%)

· Post-graduate degree (36%)

· Very familiar with firearms regulations (31%)

· Firearms violence a major threat to community safety (61%)

· Government rating on gun violence is excellent (59%)

8. Interest in participating in “buy-back” program for prohibited firearms

The vast majority of firearms owners who say they own one of the newly prohibited weapons say they would either definitely or probably participate in the buy-back program.

Among the one-quarter of firearms owners who admit to owning one of the newly prohibited weapons, over eight in ten definitely (49%) or probably participating in the buy-back program. Around one in six say they would not.

Would participate in the “buy-back” program

Subsample – Those who currently own a newly prohibited weapon

Q22 Would you participate in the federal government’s “buy back” program for newly prohibited firearms?	Firearm owners with a prohibited weapon (n=238)
Net: Yes	84%
Yes, definitely	49%
Yes, probably	35%
No, I would not	16%

Subgroup bases of this population are generally small, and caution is required when examining these results, but the following are the groups who are more likely to say they would not take part:

· Small town/rural (27%)

· Age 45+ (29%) and non-parents (25%)

· Firearms violence s not much/at all a threat to community safety (30%)

· Government performance on firearms violence is fair or poot (32%)

9. Main sources of news and information on regulations around firearms

Half of Canadians, and almost six in ten firearms owners, say government websites are a main source of information about firearms regulations.

Canadians were asked to indicate their sources of news and information about firearms regulations (responses beginning with asterisks in the table below were listed; respondents were able to write in in other answers). The most common sources of news and information on regulations around firearms are government websites (52%) and social media (20%). Among firearms owners themselves, larger proportions than in the general public also mention in-store sales outlets and blogs for gun owners.

Main sources of news and information on firearms-regulations - by firearms ownership/intention

Q23 What are your two main sources of news and information on regulations around firearms?	Total (n=2,000)	Firearm owners (n=579)	Likely to own in future (n=302)
*Government websites (e.g., RCMP, Public Safety Canada)	52%	58%	47%
*Social media (e.g., Facebook groups, Twitter etc.)	20%	15%	23%
TV/radio news	10%	2%	3%
*Firearms in-store sales outlets	5%	8%	8%
*Blogs for gun owners	5%	10%	9%
*Online firearms sales outlets	2%	3%	6%
*Firearms trade shows	2%	3%	3%
Family/friends/word of mouth	1%	1%	2%
Newspapers/magazines	1%	0%	0%
Mainstream media	1%	<1%	0%
Other	<1%	0%	<1%
Nothing/don't follow items	2%	0%	1%
DK/NA	<1%	0%	0%

Government web sites is the top response across the country and across all subgroups. Social media is a bigger source for those age 18 to 29 (34%) and those with household incomes under $40,000 (24%) or with high school or less education (23%).

II. Detailed findings – qualitative phase

A. Wave One – Testing of Creative Concept Animatics and URLs

This initial wave of ten online focus group was designed to assess reaction to various ad concepts shown in animatic format. Three 30-second digital ad concepts addressing issues around firearms safety were assessed during these 10 focus group sessions. Participants were shown each ad concept one at a time in animatic form, followed by a discussion about the concept before moving on to the next. The order of the ads was randomized for each focus group.

The ad concepts tested were as follows:

CONCEPT D – “Just the facts”

CONCEPT H – “Sense of responsibility”

CONCEPT M – “A safe place”

Reactions to different possible URLs for the landing page cited in the ads were also tested.

11. General observations

Non-gun owning participants reacted very favourably to the whole idea of the Government of Canada communicating about gun violence. The reaction of gun owners to the ad concepts was more complex

All in all, the non-gun owning participants reacted very favourably to the whole idea of the Government of Canada communicating about gun violence and about the measures that were being taken to contain it. While the issue may not have been a top-of-mind concern before seeing the ad concepts, participants were sensitized to the issue as a result of seeing the ad concepts. Non-gun owning participants had very similar overall reactions to the ad concepts regardless of what region they were from. It was notable that the issue of gun violence resonated in the Atlantic sessions where several people associated the issues with the recent mass murders in Nova Scotia.

The reaction of gun owners to the ad concepts was more complex. Some, particularly those who owned several firearms, were very critical of measures mentioned in the ads, such as the ban on “assault-style” firearms; this terminology was seen by some as poorly defined, and they felt it was a needless attack on law-abiding gun owners. In particular, they focused on the spoken statement about “assault-style” firearms, often to the exclusion of other ad elements. Gun owners tended to feel that they are already doing their part and are more interested in what is being done to address illegal guns and criminality.

While some gun owners appreciated the ad concepts that portrayed gun owners in a sympathetic light, particularly as was the case with Concept H, others did not like seeing gun owners featured in any ad concepts at all. They did not want to be the focus of any communications by the Government and resented being connected with criminal violence.

There were some regional differences in how the gun owners reacted overall to these ad concepts and to the whole issue of firearm safety. The gun owners in Alberta and Ontario – many of whom owned a number of firearms – were more critical of the government for its overall policies regulating firearms and felt that law abiding gun owners were being unfairly targeted. As noted, the recent ban on assault-style firearms was particularly controversial and some noted that it was very unclear what ‘assault-style” even meant in this context. They tended to view this whole issue through a very political lens and felt that the government was trying to exploit the issue of gun violence. On the other hand, the gun owners in Quebec, Atlantic Canada and B.C. reacted quite differently. Much more of them only had one firearm and owning a firearm was less of a major factor in their day to day lives. Several just hunted periodically for game or had a gun they had inherited and hardly ever used. They tended not to feel as personally impacted by the ban on assault-style firearms and did not react spontaneously to it being mentioned in any of the ads.

12. Ad Concept Animatics: Individual Assessments

"Just the facts," was seen to be the most effective of the three ads in the eyes of both gun owners and non-gun owners.

CONCEPT D – “Just the facts”

Concept D, known as "Just the facts," was seen to be the most effective of the three ads in the eyes of both gun owners and non-gun owners. The main message most participants took from this ad was that gun violence is rising in Canada, that the government is taking action to curb gun violence, and that Canadians and particularly gun owners all have a role to play in reducing gun violence. Some gun owners perceived the main message in a more adversarial way, focusing mainly on elements related to gun owners and new gun laws.

Most participants took an interest in the statistics and appreciated the overall tone of the messaging. Most felt that this ad concept was aimed at all Canadians, and that, compared to the other concepts, it was more likely to make gun owners feel like they could be part of the solution rather than being blamed.

The vast majority said this was the concept most likely to make them curious to seek out more information or click on the link at the end of the ad. Participants appreciated that while the ad educated them about the increasing menace of gun violence, it sent a message of shared responsibility rather than placing blame on gun owners. They also appreciated that the message was supported with facts, rather than fear, and clearly outlined that the Government is taking action.

This ad concept featured four statistics which were discussed in the sessions:

1. Violent offences involving guns up 81% since 2009.

2. Gun homicides increased 43% since 2009.

3. Gun-related violent crimes are 14% higher in rural than urban areas.

4. Break and enters with the purpose of stealing guns more than tripled between 2009 and 2018.

Overall, the use of statistics and charts in Concept D was a positively received with all audiences and many said the statistics might motivate them to click on the ad for more information. Many participants felt that this ad educated them about things they did not know before. Gun owners, some of whom were skeptical about some of the facts within Concept D, indicated the ad would spark their curiosity to find out more about the statistics presented.

Most participants found the statistics relevant, and in some cases expressed surprise or shock at these facts. Some already suspected or knew that gun-related homicides were on the rise, however the statistics pointed to an even higher rate of increase than they had initially expected. The most compelling statistics for participants were that violent offences involving guns were up 81% since 2009 and that break and enters for the purpose of stealing guns had more than tripled in that time. Several participants, particular non-owners, said they had not previously considered that offenders might commit break and enter crimes specifically to steal firearms.

Discussion from the groups elicited a range of mostly positive impressions and observations from participants, particularly with regard to the use of charts and statistics.

· A few noted that Concept D changed some of their preconceived notions around gun violence, for example, the comparison of rural areas and urban centres was striking for some, and others were surprised to learn that crimes often involve guns stolen within Canada rather than guns brought into the country from the United States.

· Overall, because of its use of specific statistics, Concept D was the only ad that participants perceived as offering something new or novel. Participants could see a clear connection between the statistics and the importance of gun safety and safe gun storage implied in the ad.

· The upward arrow image at the beginning of the ad that illustrated the rise in gun violence was highly memorable for many participants.

While Concept D was well-received overall, participants had some fairly minor criticisms and suggestions for improvement:

· While the statistics were popular overall, some participants were concerned that there were too many statistics in Concept D and that they went by too quickly. There was some concern about how “heavy” the ad was in terms of content, and that it was perhaps too oversaturated with information to be absorbed.

· Participants suggested focusing on one or two statistics, allowing the statistics to remain on screen a bit longer, or producing multiple ads with a different statistic in each ad.

· There was some degree of skepticism about the statistics among gun owners, with some feeling that the facts were presented in an intentionally alarming way. In some instances, gun owners said that they would be motivated to learn more about the statistics so they could refute them.

CONCEPT H – “Sense of responsibility”

Participants in both segments felt the main message of Concept H (“Sense of responsibility”) was that gun owners are responsible, family-oriented Canadians who have a role to play in reducing gun violence by properly storing their firearms. While there was consensus about what the ad was trying to convey, gun owners and non-owners responded differently to the message.

The non-gun owners were generally positive toward the ad, though they tended to feel that the ad was solely aimed at gun owners and therefore not really relevant to them. Gun owners, on the other hand, felt the ad concept was very much directed at them, but for the most part did not find it to be an effective method for reminding them of their responsibilities and in some instances felt defensive about the message.

There was some recognition in both segments that improper storage contributes to gun related crimes/violence, but they felt the concept showed no connection to a specific type of crime, an amount of crime, or any increase in gun-related violence over time. Some also felt that the ad was telling that most firearm owners were decent responsible people with families.

Very few said they would feel compelled to act after seeing the ad, although a few non-owners said they might forward the ad or repost it for gun-owning friends and family on social media.

Group discussion of this ad concept generated a mix of positive and negative feedback:

· Almost all gun owners felt that Concept H was aimed at them, but some questioned the use of running an ad to remind them about safe storage when gun storage is already a prominent aspect of gun licensing courses and gun owner responsibilities. They suggested that reminders about proper gun safety or information about new laws would be better delivered through a direct notice. Some gun owners noted that the ad would be more effective for newer gun owners with less experience and familiarity with the rules.

· Despite this sentiment, gun owners did recognize that while they may take all the necessary precautions, they cannot control what others might do. The part that speaks to “what others might do” did seem to strike a chord with them.

· While participants did feel like this ad was primarily aimed at gun owners, some participants identified a few ways in which it might have broader relevance for Canadians:

o The ad makes non-gun owners aware of the obligations related to gun ownership.

o Non-gun owners might know gun owners, or they or their children might go to homes where there is a gun stored.

o A non-gun owner today might become a gun owner tomorrow/in the future.

· Some participants in both groups, especially non-owners, felt the ad did a good job at not placing blame on gun owners, and instead, pointed to a problem and solution in an inoffensive way. Gun owners did not always agree with this perception, however, and some resented that they were being singled out in an ad on this topic. They felt that in the eyes of non-gun owners, gun owners will be seen to be “the problem”.

· Most appreciated the positive portrayal in this ad concept of a gun owner as a law-abiding, family-oriented person but felt the government should focus on more criminals and illegal gun related activity, and not on legitimate gun owners.

· The images of the man locking away his gun were one of the more memorable elements within the concept.

· Gun owners in some groups found the line about the “assault style” weapons ban to be jarring and not in keeping with the overall tone of the ad. This sentiment came up in discussion of all three ad concepts but was felt most acutely in Concept H. As noted earlier, the negative reaction to mention of the ban on “assault-style” weapons was particularly notable among the owners of multiple firearms in Alberta and Ontario.

· Women in the non-owners group tended to notice the children in the ad and referred to them as an important consideration around gun safety throughout their feedback on this concept (this theme also emerged to some extent for Concept M).

Participants in both segments provided some constructive feedback on how this ad concept could be improved:

· One gun owner noted that the ad should show different types of guns being properly stored, not just rifles, since this might portray rifle owners in a certain light.

· Some felt that the gun owner narrating the ad sounded and looked sombre or depressed, which made the message more confusing, as though the person speaking might be unhappy about the rules and responsibilities. They felt that a small shift in the overall mood or tone of the ad would work better. This was noted more in the English groups than in the French groups.

· Gun owners specifically felt that relevant new information or changes to gun ownership laws need to be communicated directly to licensed gun owners. In several instances, gun owners said that they were unclear about how the ban on assault-style weapons affected them, and they would like to be able to access clear information about that.

· Very few participants felt like they were learning anything new through this ad, particularly gun owners, and it did not shift perceptions of gun violence. Pairing the ad with some facts like those from Concept D was one suggestion raised as a way to increase its effectiveness.

CONCEPT M – “A safe place”

An animatic for Ad Concept M: “A Safe Place” that is split into four quadrants. The top left quadrant depicts a mountain landscape. The top right quadrant depicts a man, woman, and teen sitting on a city bench. The bottom left quadrant depicts a woman and child in front of a convenience store. The bottom right quadrant depicts a man and woman standing in a town.

Concept M, known as “A safe place,” was the least compelling of the three concepts for both gun owners and non-owners. The main message that participants understood from Concept M was that while Canadians view Canada as a safe place to live, gun violence is a growing threat to people of all walks of life in both rural and urban communities, and that Canada must work together as a society to keep everyone safe.

Participants, especially in the gun owner groups, also seemed to feel that this was more of a public service announcement about new gun laws, rather than a call to action. Many felt this ad concept would elevate fears and anxieties about safety from guns without offering clear facts. One noteworthy exception was among the gun owners in British Columbia, who appreciated that this ad did not draw attention to them.

Concept M was not seen to be particularly memorable by most participants, who often described it as a generic government ad with a variety of people and typical Canadian settings, but no clear connection to the message. While many participants noted that the ad concept used images of diversity across ethnicities and age groups and talked about working “together” (or “ensemble”), this mainly contributed to the sense that Concept M was a cliché without much substance.

Discussion around this ad concept was generally less robust, with participants offering less reaction than they did to the other two concepts:

· Gun owners tended to dismiss concept M as likely being aimed at urban dwellers who likely know very little about guns or the people who own them.

· Non-owners appreciated the central message about safety but almost always felt that case was made more effectively by the stats and charts in Concept D.

o The point related to assault-style guns comes out more clearly in this ad.

o The reference to needing a collective effort also comes out more clearly to participants in this ad.

· Participants did note that while the ad indicates that the Government is taking steps to control gun violence, it does not explain what they, as citizens could be doing to help. They appreciated that they probably do have a role to play but the ad does not point them towards any specific actions.

· A few noted that there is a reference in the ad to an increase in gun-related violence in Canada and that this might compel them to visit the website to find out more about that particular fact, but otherwise there is nothing in the ad to compel website visits or any other action.

· Some participants mentioned that more concrete facts, like those from Concept D, might make the ad resonate more with them.

13. Comparative Assessment of Ad Concepts

The vast majority of participants – gun owners and non-gun owners alike – felt that Concept D “Just the Facts” was the most effective of the three ad concepts.

Three stills from each ad concept. The first still from Concept D depicts a map of Canada with a graph arrow in the foreground going up. Text reads “Violent offences involving guns up 81% since 2009.” The second still from Concept H depicts a man hugging two children with a firearms case in the background. The third still from Concept M depicts a man, woman, and teen sitting on a city bench.

After the individual discussion of each of the three ad concepts, participants were shown all three concepts again, one after the other and asked to assess which one of the three ads did the best job of communicating the fact that the Government was taking steps to reduce gun violence and would make them want to know more. The vast majority of participants – gun owners and non-gun owners alike – felt that Concept D “Just the Facts” was the most effective ad. As noted above the use of charts and statistics grabbed participants’ attention and sensitized them to the fact that gun violence was a growing problem in Canada. It was noted that this ad had some relevance for all Canadians be they gun owners or not and that it wove in a message about the responsibilities of gun owners without making them seem to be cause of the problem. There was a general feeling that this ad concept left the impression that the government was on the case and was taking this issue seriously. Most participants did not notice the link to a website at the end of the ad, but many understood that clicking on any online ad would inevitably bring someone to a landing page. Concept D was clearly the ad that would be most likely to make people click on the ad if only because they want to learn more about the statistics mentioned in the ad and that would lead to learning more on the issue of gun violence

Most agreed that Concept H was the most effective at portraying gun owners as part of the solution, by putting numbers to a problem that is linked to improper firearm storage, but this perception was not unanimous. Some gun owners did not appreciate being implicated in the problem in this way. It was noted that if the objective of the ad was to try to rehabilitate the image of gun owners among the Canadian general public, then some version of Concept H would be the one to use. However, as noted the challenge with Concept H is that the underlying message about the government’s efforts to address gun safety get upstaged by the perceived message about gun owners themselves.

Concept M was very seldom identified as the most effective ad on any level. If participants want an ad that has a message for or about gun owners, they gravitate towards Concept H. If they are more moved by an ad that makes the case for how gun violence is a growing problem, the charts and statistics in Concept D are far more compelling than softer, community and family images that are the hallmarks of Concept M.

Some gun owners consistently objected to the phrase “assault-style” in all of the ad concepts, and had difficulty moving past this distraction in order to consider the other elements of the ads.

Participants were asked about what they would have liked to see in an ad on this topic that may not have appeared in any of the ad concepts they were shown. The most common resp0onse was that they would have liked an ad that addressed what the government was doing to crack down on illegal guns and on criminal activity around guns. The gun owners in particular felt this was much more important and relevant information than having to hear more about “assault-style weapons”.

14. Campaign URLs

There was a strong preference for the original campaign URL shown in the concepts themselves (Canada.ca/firearms).

After reviewing the ad concepts Participants were shown six different options for the URL leading to the Public Safety Canada landing page that would appear at the end of the ad. Almost all participants noticed that there was a URL shown in the ad where viewers could click for more information, but most could not specifically recall the wording of the URL when prompted. The URLs tested were as follows:

A. Canada.ca/firearms

B. Canada.ca/reduce-gun-violence

C. Canada.ca/stop-gun-violence

D. Canada.ca/safe-and-secure-guns

E. Canada.ca/firearm-safety

F. Canada.ca/gun-safe-communities

In general, participants from both the gun owner and non-owner groups preferred the URL shown in the concepts themselves (Canada.ca/firearms). They felt it was short, memorable, and self-explanatory. The other URLs were mostly seen to be too long, with too many hyphens. This preference was even more pronounced in the French sessions since all the URLs were longer and had more hyphens in French. As a result, French participants preferred Canada.ca/armes-a-feu over the other options some of which had as many as four hyphens.

Gun owners showed some sensitivity toward URLs that potentially implied a connection between firearms or gun owners and violence and suggested they would be less likely to click on URLs with wording like “stop-gun-violence” or “gun-safe-communities” and preferred more neutral terminology.

While participants were not sure what to expect from the website, the general consensus was that a landing page from “firearms” would likely host a variety of content organized with sub-headings to deal with topics highlighted in the other URLs, such as firearm safety and gun safe community.

B. Wave Two – Success Check of “Just the Facts” Ad and Banner Ads

This second wave of 10 online focus group sessions was designed to test reaction to the fully produced video of the digital ad known as “Just the Facts”. Participants were shown the 30 second digital advertisement twice, followed by a discussion on initial reactions and questions raised. To deepen observations and reactions from participants, the ad was shown a third and final time, followed by another discussion. Several executions of banner ads were also tested during these sessions.

1. General observations on “Just the Facts”

Participants who owned guns reacted quite negatively to the ad, seeing is as politically motivated and likely to stigmatize legitimate gun owners as being responsible for gun violence. Non gun owners had a more favourable reaction.

An empty city street. Text reads “Violent offences involving guns up 81% since 2009.” A man closes a firearms safe.

General reaction to the ad was very different depending on whether the participants were gun owners or non-gun owners. Gun owners tended to react quite negatively to the ad. Many felt it was politically motivated and tended to stigmatize legitimate gun owners as being responsible for an increase in gun violence – often aroused by recent legislation on firearms. The facts and statistics in the ad were widely noticed but often dismissed or minimized. The ad was seen to be mainly aimed at the general public and the mention of the ban on assault style firearms was triggering.

The non-gun owning general public had a more favourable reaction to the ad and saw it as informing people about gun violence, while also reminding gun owners to store guns safely.

A common suggestion was to divide the advertisement into two separate versions: One informing public that gun violence is on the rise, and another with straightforward information describing how to store guns safely.

2. “Just the Facts” – Gun owner groups

Gun owning participants felt that ad had two contradictory messages and did not like being associated with an ad on gun violence. They were sceptical of the charts and statistics presented in the ad.

Many of the participants in the gun owning groups saw “two ads in one”. The first part was seen as a “scare tactic” they feared would make the general public see gun owners as the source of the problem with gun violence. The second part was seen as a more ‘relatable’ depiction of a gun owner as a family person who practiced safe storage. Some gun owners (esp. those who owned numerous guns) saw the ad as part of politically motivated broader attack on them. Others were more appreciative of the reminder to store guns safely and felt represented – though they think responsible gun owners already take all necessary steps.

Overall, gun owners did not like that hunting rifles were referenced in the same context as statistics surrounding the rise of gun-related crimes. Gun owners who use their rifles for hunting and who believe that they follow the rules diligently did not believe that these crimes are connected to them or to hunters in general. They fear that the ad might misinform the general public. The participants who owned guns acknowledged that gun violence is a growing problem, but they resented any implication that they are part of the problem. They feel an ad on this topic should instead focus on action being taken against criminals and against gun smuggling.

Several participants resented how hunting rifles were referenced in the same context as stats about gun-related crimes rising. They see gun owners like themselves responsible hunters and sport shooters who follow the rules diligently and have no role in the rise in gun crimes. They fear that the ad might misinform the general public and stigmatize them. Several participants reacted quite negatively to the mention of the ban on “assault-style” firearms, which they widely view as ineffective.

The various statistics presented in the ad were a topic of animated discussion – especially the stat about the 81% rise in gun crimes – but the gun owners were often quite skeptical and dismissive of the stats. They questioned the sources and if they were taken out of context. Most were not surprised to hear that rural gun violence was comparable to urban gun violence. The fact that break and enters to steal guns had tripled had more resonance for gun owners since it could directly affect them. It was noted that the stats in the ad went by very quickly and that it was hard to focus on them. This was part of a larger criticism that the ad seemed to have too many messages and too much information.

Several participants felt that the ad was aimed mainly at Canadians who don’t own guns, in order to make them feel that guns were a threat, and that the government would make them safer. Because of this, the ad was often deemed as “political” and “propagandistic.” Gun owners generally did not see themselves as the intended audience for the ad despite the reference to gun storage and safety at the end.

3. “Just the Facts” – general public groups

Non-gun owning participants had a more favourable reaction to the ad and felt main message was that gun crimes were on the increase, that Canadians need to be concerned and that people who own guns need to be careful with them

The participants from the non-gun owning general public generally had a much more favourable reaction to the ad. The main message of the ad was seen to be that gun crimes were on the increase, that Canadians need to be concerned and that people who own guns need to be careful with them. While some non were more likely to feel scared, or sad or emotional after viewing the ad, they still felt the ad conveyed an important message.

The general public were more likely than the gun owners to believe the statistics and take them at face value. They were the most shocked about the 81% increase in gun violence statistic, as well as the statistic about rural vs. urban gun violence.

Those who mentioned having friends or family members with guns were more reluctant to place blame for gun violence on responsible gun owners who they assume already store their guns safely.

Most felt that this ad was aimed at the “average Canadian” who does not own a gun but is aware of gun violence from the news. It serves as a reminder of what the Government is doing to address the problem. A smaller number felt the ad was aimed at gun owners as a reminder to store their guns safely and they wondered why the ad was relevant to people who do not own guns.

Some participants in the French sessions noted that the use of the word “ensemble” was confusing because, in their opinion, gun owners are the ones who need to take the responsibility for reducing gun violence and they did not see what the role of the rest of the population was supposed to be.

Many also felt the ad had too much information that was on the screen for too short a time and that there were too many messages. Some also felt that an ad on the topic of gun violence would require harsher imagery and feature a greater variety of guns, as well as a more prescriptive approach to how gun safety might be improved.

4. Social Media Banner Ads

Most preferred a banner ad with an image of someone doing a break and enter and gun owners prefer not to see themselves represented in ads on gun violence.

Participants were shown several sets of banners ads on firearms safety and gun violence that would be used in a social media context. The first sequence of two banner ads were shown both in a version that would carousel between two images – or as a single image that would consolidate all the information into a single banner ad.

Among gun-owner participants, the image in banner Ad #2 slide A of a burglar with a crowbar was preferred as it related to the headline about break and enters. They believed that, since the point of the ad was to make people aware of the increase in break and enters, it made sense to display a criminal. This put the onus more on the criminal and less on the gun owner. Several participants reacted more negatively to Ad #1 slide A for using an image of a gun – likely a hunting rifle - that would not likely ever be used in criminal activity. One even indicated that it isn’t a gun anybody is "allowed" to have.

As was noted in the reaction to the “Just the Facts” ad, participants who own guns do not like being featured in any advertising about gun related violence. They find it stigmatizing. Therefor they generally were not as appreciative of images of a hunter or target shooter in the second slide of each banner ad.

There was a conversation among participants who felt 2B placed too much attention on a hunter, who is likely to be practicing safe gun storage. While they appreciated the word “together” as a method of unity, they felt that showcasing a hunter was dangerous to an already polarizing topic. The image in banner ad 1 slide B was described as confusing and incited mixed, sometimes indifferent reactions. Many could not tell what the person in the ad was supposed to be doing. In general, participants felt that “See what you can do” was a compelling call-to-action.

Non-gun owners also preferred image 2A since the image of the burglar tied in well with the words. It did the best job at delivering the message in a clear, straightforward manner. While a few participants remarked that the hunter looked non-threatening, several believed that showing a hunter in 2B was not the right focus. Slides 1A and 1B did not evoke any strong reaction or discussion. Many non-gun owners did not know what the image in 1B was showing and did not recognize that the person was at a shooting range.

Most participants preferred the “consolidated” versions of the banner ads where all the information was on a single slide and #2 was clearly preferred as it featured the image of the break in. There were some concerns among French-speaking participants that the French version of the consolidated ad may be too crammed with words and look too busy.

Gun owners were particularly drawn to the consolidated version of concept 2 for conveying a clear message. They believed that showing a break and enter made sense towards the overall message and was more effective for being action oriented. They also appreciated that it didn’t place too much emphasis on responsible gun owners. While a handful of gun owners noted that the statistic was somewhat vague, the "nearly tripled" was certainly surprising and might compel them to want to visit the site.

5. Banner GIFs

Most preferred the image in banner ad #4 that showed lights from a police car in the background.

Three more versions of banner ad GIFs were shown that would appear in Facebook or Instagram-style banner ads.

Participants who owned guns often described image #3 as unremarkable and “generic.” Several questioned the use of the upward arrows and postulated whether they should be facing downwards since the goal is to reduce crime. Most noticed the police sirens in the background of image #4 making it the image that gun owners were most likely to click on. Gun owning participants appreciated image #4 for showing an image associated with crime. Some respondents suggested that the police sirens and colours could be more pronounced, as it was hard to notice at first. Image 5 was critiqued for using an image of a combination lock on a gun safe that only gun owners would understand. Only a few gravitated to it for conveying responsible gun safety.

Non-gun-owning participants had a similar reaction. Very few said they would click on image #3 first. It also described as too “generic” with no link to the subject matter. The upward arrows were confusing to some and even reminded some of stock market indices. Image #4 attracted the most attention as the sight of a police light was a good match to the message about gun violence, however it was reiterated that the police colours were not clear enough. Most felt that image #5 might be relevant to gun owners, but that others might not recognize what the combination lock was supposed to mean.

Appendix A: Quantitative methodology

The quantitative phase of this research consisted of an online survey of 2,000 Canadians age 18 and over. The target audiences are as follows:

· Current owners of firearms.

· Parents of children under the age of 18.

· Canadian general public.

The survey of 2,000 Canadians included an oversample to ensure interviews were conducted with at least 400 owners of firearms. Parents of minor children being relatively abundant in the Canadian general public, it was anticipated the survey sample would include 500 to 600 parents without the need to oversample.

The online sample was sourced from Delvinia’s AskingCanadians panel and its French counterpart Qu’en pensez-vous, which is able to generate a large sample with representative coverage of all groups of interest. Since the samples used in online panel surveys are based on self-selection and are not a random probability sample, no formal estimates of sampling error can be calculated. Although opt-in panels are not random probability samples, online surveys can be used for general population surveys provided they are well designed and employ a large, well-maintained panel.

Sample design and weighting

The sampling method was designed to complete interviews with 2,000 Canadians age 18 and over, and with oversamples of target groups. Quotas were also set by age, gender, and region. The following targets were achieved (note there is overlap with firearms owners and parents):

Target populations	Base Sample	Oversample	TOTAL
Firearm owners	329	250	579
Parents of children <18	577	131	708
Non-target general public	1,020	N/A	1,020
TOTAL	1,750	250	2,000

The following is the achieved (unweighted) distribution by region:

Region	Base Sample	Oversample	TOTAL
Atlantic	130	26	156
Quebec	425	49	474
Ontario	670	86	756
Man/Sask	115	23	138
Alberta	180	33	213
B.C.	230	33	263
TOTAL	1,750	250	2,000

The survey achieved the following distributions (NOTE there is overlap with firearms owners and parents):

General public plus oversample
Target group	Unweighted	Weighted*
Non-target completions	1,020	1,289
Firearm owners	579	260
Parents of children <18 years old	708	574
Total respondents	2,000	2,000
Atlantic Canada	156	132
Quebec	474	464
Ontario	756	766
Man/Sask	137	136
Alberta	211	232
BC	266	270

*Results are weighted by region, gender, and age to 2016 Census data.

Questionnaire design

Public Safety Canada provided Environics with an outline of topics to be covered in the survey. Environics then designed questionnaire in consultation with PSC to ensure its research objectives were met. Upon approval of the English questionnaires, Environics arranged for the questionnaires to be translated into French by professional translators.

Environics’ data analysts programmed the questionnaires, then performed thorough testing to ensure accuracy in set-up and data collection. This validation ensured the data entry process conformed to the surveys’ basic logic. The data collection system handles sampling invitations, quotas, and questionnaire completion (skip patterns, branching, and valid ranges).

The final survey questionnaire is included in Appendix C.

Fieldwork

Fieldwork was conducted from December 1-11, 2020. It should be noted this field period included the anniversary of the École Polytechnique Tragedy and the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women (December 6), which may have made gun-related violence top of mind for some. The median interview length was 11 minutes.

All respondents were offered the opportunity to complete the surveys in their official language of choice. All research work was conducted in accordance with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Online Surveys and recognized industry standards, as well as applicable federal legislation (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA).

The data from this survey are statistically weighted to ensure the sample is as representative of this population as possible according to the most recently available Census information.

Completion results

The completion results are presented in the following table.

Contact disposition

Disposition	Total sample
Total invitations (c)	30,000
Total completes (d)	2,000
Qualified break-offs (e)	485
Disqualified (f)	1,123
Not responded (g)	24,516
Quota filled (h)	1,876
Contact rate = (d+e+f+h)/c	18.28%
Participation rate = (d+f+h)/c	16.66%

Respondent profile

The following table presents the weighted distribution of survey participants by key demographic and other variables.

Total interviewed	Total sample %
Age
18-29	17%
30-44	28%
45-59	28%
60+	28%
Gender
Female	49%
Male	50%
Gender diverse	<1%
Education
High school or less	28%
College/tech/some uni	35%
University	37%
Household income
Under $40,000	29%
$40,000-<$80,000	33%
$80,000-<$100,000	13%
$100,000 or more	20%
Language of survey
English	79%
French	21%
Community type
Urban area	46%
Suburban area	35%
Small town/rural/remote area	18%
Birthplace
Canada	83%
Other	17%

Appendix B: Qualitative methodology

The qualitative focus group phase of this study consisted of two waves of online focus groups to test digital ad concepts developed for Public Safety Canada. The concepts were intended to communicate recent changes to Canada's gun safety legislation, inform Canadians about recent statistics around gun violence, and remind gun owners about their responsibility for safe firearm storage and practices. The discussion in each group in the initial wave of groups focused on participants’ reactions to animatics of three potential ad concepts and to URL options for the website mentioned at the end of each ad. The second wave of focus groups was designed to elicit reaction to a more finalized, produced version of the digital ad, as well as to test reaction to a series of possible banner ads to be posted on social media.

1. Group composition

Environics Research conducted a series of 10 online focus groups in January 2021 for Public Safety Canada to assess reactions to three digital ad concepts that were shown in animatic form. Two sessions were conducted with Canadians in each of the following regions: Ontario (January 5), Atlantic Canada (January 6), Quebec (January 7), British Columbia (January 9), and Alberta (January 11). The Quebec sessions were conducted in French and the other sessions were all conducted in English. Each session included six or seven participants. In each region, one session was conducted with gun owners and one was conducted with gun non-owners.

The three ad concepts that were tested were intended to communicate recent changes to Canada's gun safety legislation, inform Canadians about recent statistics around gun violence, and remind gun owners about their responsibility for safe firearm storage and practices. The discussion in each group focused on participants’ reactions to the ad concepts overall, and to specific elements within the ads. Reaction to URLs leading to a Government of Canada landing page were also tested.

This was followed by a series of 10 online focus groups conducted February 26 to March 1, 2021 to test the success of a more finalized and produced version of digital ad and to test reaction to options for social media banner ads. Two sessions were conducted with Canadians in each of the following regions: Ontario (February 27-28), Atlantic Canada (February 27-28), Quebec (March 1), British Columbia (February 26 and March 1), and Manitoba/Saskatchewan (February 27-28). The Quebec sessions were conducted in French and the other sessions were all conducted in English. Each session included six or seven participants. Half the sessions were conducted with gun owners and the remainder were conducted with non-gun owners.

Environics recruited participants via a combination of industry-standard methods to ensure participation in all the sessions across all provinces. Participants were offered a $100 incentive to thank them for their time. Environics invited seven (7) participants to each session. The sessions were hosted using the Zoom conferencing platform.

The sessions were distributed as follows:

Wave One: Concept testing

Location of participants	Dates and times	Composition and language
Ontario	Tuesday, January 5, 2021; 5:00-6:30pm EST	Gun owners (English)
Ontario	Tuesday, January 5, 2021; 7:00-8:30pm EST	General public (English)
Atlantic provinces	Wednesday, January 6, 2021; 5:00-6:30pm AST	Gun owners (English)
Atlantic provinces	Wednesday, January 6, 2021; 7:00-8:30pm AST	General public (English)
Quebec	Thursday, January 7, 2021; 5:00-6:30pm EST	Gun owners (French)
Quebec	Thursday, January 7, 2021; 7:00-8:30pm EST	General public (French)
B.C.	Saturday, January 9, 2021 10:00-11:30pm PST	Gun owners (English)
B.C.	Saturday, January 9, 2021 12:00-1:30pm PST	General public (English)
Alberta	Monday, January 11, 2021; 5:00-6:30pm MST	Gun owners (English)
Alberta	Monday, January 11, 2021; 7:00-8:30pm MST	General public (English)

Wave Two: Success check

Location of participants	Dates and times	Composition and language
B.C.	Friday, February 26, 2021; 4:00-5:00pm PST	Gun owners (English)
Atlantic provinces	Saturday, February 27, 2021; 12:00-1:00pm AST	Gun owners (English)
Ontario	Saturday, February 27, 2021; 12:00-1:00pm EST	Gun owners (English)
Manitoba/ Saskatchewan	Saturday, February 27, 2021; 1:00-2:00pm CST	Gun owners (English)
Atlantic provinces	Sunday, February 28, 2021; 12:00-1:00pm AST	General public (English)
Ontario	Sunday, February 28, 2021; 12:00-1:00pm EST	General public (English)
Manitoba/ Saskatchewan	Sunday, February 28, 2021; 1:00-2:00pm CST	General public (English)
Quebec	Monday, March 1, 2021; 5:00-6:00pm EST	Gun owners (French)
Quebec	Monday, March 1, 2021; 6:30-7:30pm EST	General public (French)
B.C.	Monday, March 1, 2021; 5:00-6:00pm EST	General public (English)

2. Recruitment

Environics developed the recruitment screener and provided it to Public Safety Canada for review prior to finalizing. While qualitative research does not give every member of the target population a chance to participate, and its results are not intended to be statistically representative of the broader target population (i.e., owners of firearms and the Canadian general public), it does aim to collect information that is broadly reflective of the target population. Potential participants were screened to reflect a distribution of factors to ensure a wide variety of perspectives. Factors included gender, age, ability to attend the online focus group session, and willingness to read, assess and share feedback on the creative materials. Participants were screened to ensure all exclusions and specifications required by the Government of Canada were followed. All participants were offered a $100 honorarium to encourage participation and thank them for their commitment.

Environics subcontracted Trend Research to recruit the focus group participants. In total, there were 140 participants invited to take part in the 20 focus groups, 128 of whom participated.

3. Moderation and conduct

Derek Leebosh, Vice President – Public Affairs at Environics Research, moderated all 16 English-language sessions. Rick Nadeau moderated the four French sessions. Each focus group session lasted approximately 90 minutes in the first wave and approximately 60 minutes in the second wave and was conducted according to a discussion guide developed in consultation with Public Safety Canada. All qualitative research work was conducted in accordance with professional standards and applicable government legislation (e.g., PIPEDA).

All groups were video- and audio-recorded for use in subsequent analysis by the research team. During the recruitment process, participants provided consent to such recording and were given assurances of anonymity. Environics arranged for the screener and discussion guide to be translated into French. Industry and Government of Canada standards for qualitative research were followed.

Appendix D: Qualitative research instruments

December 7, 2020

Environics Research Group

Focus Groups on Firearms Regulation Communications

Public Safety Canada

PN10914

Recruitment for online group discussion

Respondent Name:

Home #:

Business #:

Group #:

Recruiter:

GROUP 1

Firearms owners (English)
Alberta

Monday, Jan. 11

5-6:30 pm MST

GROUP 2

Gen Pop (English)
Alberta

Monday, Jan. 11

7-8:30 pm MST

GROUP 3

Firearms owners (English)
Ontario

Tuesday, Jan. 5

5-6:30 pm EST

GROUP 4

Gen Pop (English)
Ontario

Tuesday, Jan. 5

7-8:30 pm EST

GROUP 5

Firearms owners (English)
Atlantic

Wednesday, Jan. 6

5-6:30 pm AST

GROUP 6

Gen Pop (English)
Atlantic

Wednesday, Jan. 6

7-8:30 pm AST

GROUP 7

Firearms owners (French)
Quebec

Gen Pop (English)
Man/Sask

Thursday, Jan. 7

5-6:00 pm EST

Monday, March 8

4-5:00 pm CST

GROUP 8

Gen Pop (French)
Quebec

Thursday, Jan. 7

3:30-4:30 pm PST

GROUP 9

Firearms owners (English)
BC

Saturday, Jan. 9

10-11:30 pm PST

GROUP 10

Gen Pop (English)
BC

Saturday, Jan. 9

12-1:30 pm PST

NB: Groups 5 and 6 (Atlantic) - participants from at least two provinces per group;

Each session to have at least two participants from rural areas and all to have a mix of people from various parts of each province/region.

Seven recruits per session. $100 incentive.

Groups 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 must be owners of firearms.

Groups 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10must be aged 18-70, NOT be owners of firearms and at least 2 per group should be parents of children under 18.

Hello/Bonjour, my name is _________ from Trend Research, calling on behalf of Environics Research. Would you like to continue this discussion in English? / Voulez-vous continuer cette conversation en français?

We are conducting a series of online video-conference focus group discussions [FIREARMS OWNER GROUPS: among people who own firearms]/[GEN POP GROUPS: among people in your region] on behalf of Public Safety Canada to look at some advertising and communications materials. This study is a research project, not an attempt to sell or market anything. Your participation in the research is completely voluntary, confidential and your decision to participate or not will not affect any dealings you may have with the Government of Canada.

The format will be a video-conference call discussion using the Zoom platform led by a research professional from Environics that will involve you and some other Canadians from your region. May we have your permission to ask you or someone else in your household some further question to see if you/they fit in our study? This will take about 5 minutes.

The session will last a maximum of 1.5 hours and you will receive a cash gift of $100 as a thanks for attending the session.

A recording of the session will be produced for research purposes. The recording will be used only by the research professional to assist in preparing a report on the research findings and will be destroyed once the report is completed. All information collected, used and/or disclosed will be used for research purposes only and administered as per the requirements of the Privacy Act. Environics Research has a privacy policy which can be consulted at https://environicsresearch.com/privacy-policy/

If you have questions about the legitimacy of the research, you can e-mail Public Safety Canada questions@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca. Environics is a member of the Canadian Research Insights Council (CRIC) and adheres to all its standards; the project is registered with the CRIC with the number 20201028-EN234.

NB: If a participant asks for information on the research company conducting the research they can be told: Environics Research is located at 33 Bloor Street East, Suite 900, Toronto Ontario and can be reached at 416-920-9010.

1. Do you personally, or does someone in your household own a firearm of any kind (i.e., handgun, hunting rifle, long gun etc.)?

01 – Yes, I do GROUPS 1, 3, 5, 7 AND 9

02 – I do not, but someone else in my household does GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8 AND 10

03 – No, I do not GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8 AND 10

2. Do you have any children under the age of 19 who live with you?

01 – Yes, I do AT LEAST TWO IN EACH OF GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8 AND 10

02 – No, I do not

3. Are you or is any member of your household or your immediate family employed in:

Type	No	Yes
A market research, communications or public relations firm, or an advertising agency	1	2
Media (Radio, Television, Newspapers, Magazines, etc.)	1	2
Public Safety Canada	1	2
Law enforcement (i.e., police, RCMP)	1	2
A political party	1	2

IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE – THANK AND TERMINATE

4. What province and city do you currently live in?

SEE REGIONAL BREAKS FOR GROUPS

5. Which of the following best describes where you live

01 – An urban area

02 – A suburban area

03 – A small town, rural or remote area MINIMUM 2 PER GROUP

TRY TO GET MIX OF URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL PARTICIPANTS

6. Which language do you speak most often at home?

English 1 GROUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 AND 10

French 2 GROUP 7 AND 8

7. INDICATE:

Male 1

Female 2

GEN POP GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8 AND 10 SHOULD BE 4/3 WOMEN TO MEN. TRY TO GET SOME WOMEN WHO OWN FIREARMS FOR FIREARMS GROUPS

8. We have been asked to speak to participants from all different ages. So that we may do this accurately, may I have your exact age please? (GET MIX)

_________. WRITE IN

Under 18 0 TERMINATE

18-24 years of age 1

25-34 years of age 2

35-44 years of age 3

45-54 years of age 4

55-64 years of age 5

65-74 years of age 6

75 years or more 7 TERMINATE

9. Could you please tell me what is the last level of education that you completed? (GET MIX)

Some High School only 1

Completed High School 2

Trade School certificate 3

Some Post-secondary 4

Completed Post-secondary 5

Graduate degree 6

10. Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts, how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you... (read list)?

Very comfortable 1- MIN 5 PER GROUP

Fairly comfortable 2

Not very comfortable 3 - TERMINATE

Very uncomfortable 4 - TERMINATE

11. Have you ever attended a focus group or a one-to-one discussion for which you have received a sum of money, here or elsewhere?

Yes 1 MAXIMUM 4 PER GROUP

No 2 -> (SKIP TO Q.14)

IF Q11 YES ASK:

12. When did you last attend one of these discussions?

(TERMINATE IF IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS)

13. How many focus groups or one-to-one discussions have you attended in the past 5 years?

(SPECIFY)

IF 5 OR MORE, TERMINATE

ASK ALL

14. This focus group will require participants to join a videoconference using the Zoom platform using a desktop or laptop computer or a tablet. You will need internet access in a private and quiet location to take part in the study. We cannot provide this technology for you. Will you be able to access the Internet for a 1-hour audio-visual discussion using a desktop or laptop computer or tablet?

Yes 1 CONTINUE

No 2 TERMINATE

NOTE: A MOBILE PHONE WILL NOT WORK FOR THIS EXERCISE

15. The focus group will take place using a video-conference platform called Zoom. If you are not already a user, Zoom may request you to install some software at the site https://zoom.us/download . You can delete it after the focus group if you wish. How experienced and comfortable are you with using Zoom videoconferencing?

Very comfortable 1 CONTINUE

Somewhat comfortable 2 CONTINUE

Somewhat uncomfortable 3 THANK AND TERMINATE

Very uncomfortable 4 THANK AND TERMINATE

16. Sometimes participants in the focus group are also asked to type out their responses in the “chat” function. Is there any reason why you could not participate? If you need glasses to read or a hearing aid, please remember to bring them.

Yes 1 TERMINATE

No 2

17. I would like to invite you to attend the focus group session where you will exchange your opinions in a moderated discussion with other Canadians. The session will be recorded, and some other members of the research team may also observe the session, but your participation will be confidential. If you attend the session you will receive $100 to thank you for your time. It will be sent to you electronically. Do you consent to take part in the focus group? By agreeing to participate you are giving your consent to these procedures.

Yes 1

No 2 TERMINATE

18. We will contact you again before the date of the session to confirm your attendance. Note that this invitation is to you personally and you cannot have anyone else substitute for you. Do you consent to this?

Yes 1

No 2 TERMINATE

19. The session is about an hour (i.e., 60-minutes), but we are asking that all participants log into the Zoom online meeting 5 minutes prior to the start of the session. Are you able to log-in about 5 minutes prior to the start time?

Yes 1

No 2 TERMINATE

20. Could you please confirm your email address so I can send you login details for the Zoom web conference application?

E-mail address:

PLEASE RE-READ THE FULL ADDRESS BACK TO CONFIRM CORRECT SPELLING.
(NB: We will send the links to you early next week)

PLEASE ENSURE PARTICIPANTS ARE TOLD THE TIME OF SESSION IN THEIR TIME ZONE
SEE TIMES AND DATES ON PAGE 1

INTERVIEWERS: Tell respondent that it is a small group and anyone who does not show or cancels at the last minute will compromise the project. Make sure they know we feel their opinions are valuable and we are serious about finding out what they have to offer.

NOTE: PLEASE TELL ALL RESPONDENTS THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION CALL AND/OR E-MAIL THE DAY PRIOR TO THE SESSION. IF FOR SOME REASON THEY HAVE NOT HEARD FROM US THEY SHOULD CONTACT US AT __________. IF THEIR NAME IS NOT ON THE ATTENDANCE FORM THEY WILL NOT BE ADMITTED TO THE GROUP. IF A RESPONDENT HAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RESEARCH, THEY SHOULD ALSO CONTACT US AT THIS NUMBER.

January 5, 2020

Environics Research Group Limited

Focus Groups on Firearms Communications – Phase 1

Public Safety Canada

PN10914

1.0 Introduction to procedures (10 minutes)

Hello everyone, my name is [NAME] and I work for Environics Research, a public opinion research company. Welcome to this online focus group. I will be moderating the session. This is one of a series of online focus groups we are conducting on behalf of Public Safety Canada with people from across the country. The session should last no more than 90 minutes.

We want to hear your opinions so please feel free to agree or disagree with one another. For the most part I will be showing you materials and asking you questions. You don’t have to direct all your comments to me; you can exchange opinions with each other as well.

I want to inform you that we are recording this session to help me write my report. The recording will only be used internally to analyse the research and will not be released to anyone else. MODERATOR TO PRESS “RECORD” ON ZOOM SCREEN

There are also some observers from the research team and from Public Safety Canada who are observing the session and taking notes while muted. I would also like to remind you that anything you say here will remain confidential and anonymous and any comments you make will not be linked to you by name in any reporting we do on this project.

I’m sure most of you are quite familiar with how Zoom works – especially over the last few months! For the most part we will be video chatting, but I will also be sharing my screen to show you some things and we will also use the “chat” function from time to time when I ask you to react to things in writing. I will type “hello” in the chat – can everyone see that and respond “Hi” to “everyone” just to make sure that the “chat” feature works for everyone?

I also want to say that if you feel you didn’t have a chance to express your opinion on anything during the session, you can feel free to comment in writing in the “chat”. For the most part chat with “everyone” unless you feel you need to send me a private message.

Before we get started, I just wanted to also say that if you think there may be a lot of noise at your end (i.e., kids, dog barking etc.) please click the “mute” button and just “unmute” when you want to say something. You will get the cash compensation gift we promised you electronically in the next week or two.

Let’s go around the imaginary table and introduce ourselves. Tell us your name and a bit about yourself such as where you are calling from, what sort of work you do and how you would describe the composition of your household (family, pets etc.).

FIREARMS OWNER GROUPS: We invited you to this session because you indicated that you own a firearm. Could you tell us a bit what sort of firearm you own, how long you have had it and what you use it for.

2.0 Firearms awareness ad concepts – individual assessment (50 minutes)

We are going to be looking at some ad concepts in this session that Public Safety Canada is currently developing. These would be digital ads that you might see on Facebook or Twitter or on a Google search etc. There will be three of them in total and in each case, I will share the concept with you on your screen. These are not finished ads. They are what we call “storyboards” (or “animatics”). They will look like a series of images with text. If we decide to move forward with any of these ad concepts, they would be professionally produced with actors etc. So, when you look at them you will have to use your imagination.

CONCEPT D – “Just the facts”

CONCEPT H – “Sense of responsibility”

CONCEPT M – “A safe place”

MODERATOR WILL SHOW EACH CONCEPT IN THE ZOOM CONFERENCE ONE AFTER THE OTHER IN ROTATED ORDER – THEN COME BACK TO SHOWING EACH INDIVIDUALLY FOLLOWED BY EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

Before we start going over each ad individually, I’d like you to each answer one question I will put in the chat box which is…MODERATOR WILL TYPE IN: “What is the one thing that most sticks in your mind from the three ads we just saw?”

Let’s quickly discuss what stood out for each of you…

CONCEPT D – “Just the facts”

Let’s go back to the first ad concept that is Concept D. I am going to play it for you twice. Then, I will ask a question in the CHAT for you to respond to:

MODERATOR WILL TYPE IN: “What is the main message you got from Concept D and what specific image or line from the ad sticks in your mind?”

Let’s discuss what you each wrote was the main message in this concept.

What image or line from the ad stuck in your mind or stood out for you?

Did this ad tell you anything you didn’t know before?

PROBE: Did it have any impact on your perception of firearms owners and/or on firearms-related violence?

Overall, what do you each think of this ad concept? Were there specific things you liked or did not like?

What did you think of the use of charts and statistics in this ad concept?

Were there any particular charts or stats that stood out for you? SHOW SCREEN:

1. Violent offences involving guns up 81% since 2009.

2. Gun homicides increased 43% since 2009.

3. Gun-related violent crimes are 14% higher in rural than urban areas.

4. Break and enters with the purpose of stealing guns more than tripled between 2009 and 2018.

Who do you think this ad concept is aimed at?

PROBE: Is this ad only aimed at people who currently own firearms or is the ad also relevant to the general population?

What do you think Public Safety Canada is trying to accomplish with this ad? What do you think the goal is?

If you saw this ad, what would it make you do, if anything?

PROBE: Did anyone notice the website at the end Canada.ca/firearms? Would you visit that site after seeing this ad?

CONCEPT H – “Sense of responsibility”

Let’s continue with the second ad concept that is Concept H. I am going to play it twice for you. Then I will ask a question in the CHAT for you to respond to:

MODERATOR WILL TYPE IN: “What is the main message you got from Concept D and what specific image or line from the ad sticks in your mind?”

Let’s discuss what you each wrote was the main message in this concept.

What image or line from the ad stuck in your mind or stood out for you?

Did this ad tell you anything you didn’t know before?

What image does this ad create of the kinds of people who own firearms? Did that ring true for you?

PROBE: Did it have any impact on your perceptions of firearms owners and/or on firearms-related violence?

Overall, what do you each think of this ad concept? Were there specific things you liked or did not like?

Who do you think this ad concept is aimed at?

PROBE: Is this ad only aimed at people who currently own firearms or is the ad also relevant to the general population?

What do you think Public Safety Canada is trying to accomplish with this ad? What is their goal?

If you saw this ad, what would it make you do? PROBE: Did anyone notice the website at the end Canada.ca/firearms? Would you visit that site after seeing this ad?

CONCEPT M – “A safe place”

Let’s continue with the third ad concept that is Concept M. I am going to play it for you twice. Then I will ask a question in the CHAT for you to respond to:

MODERATOR WILL TYPE IN: “What is the main message you get from Concept M and what specific image or line from the ad sticks in your mind?”

Let’s discuss what you each wrote was the main message in this concept.

What image or line from the ad stuck in your mind or stood out for you?

Did this ad tell you anything you didn’t know before?

PROBE: Did it have any impact on your perception of firearms owners and/or on firearms-related violence?

Overall, what do you each think of this ad concept? Were there specific things you liked or did not like?

What did you think of the use of images in this ad concept? Were there any that stood out for you?

Who do you think this ad concept is aimed at?

PROBE: Is this ad only aimed at people who currently own firearms or is the ad also relevant to the general population?

What do you think Public Safety Canada is trying to accomplish with this ad? What is their goal?

If you saw this ad, what would it make you do? PROBE: Did anyone notice the website at the end Canada.ca/firearms? Would you visit that site after seeing this ad?

3.0 Firearms awareness ad concepts – comparative assessment (10 minutes)

Now I want you to think about the three ad concepts we have been talking about and I will show them all to you one more time.

MODERATOR TO SHOW ALL THREE AD CONCEPTS

MODERATOR TO TYPE IN CHAT BOX: “Which one of these ad concepts does the best job of making you want to find out more about the Government of Canada’s new programs to reduce gun violence and keep our communities safe? D, H or M?

Could you each tell us which concept you picked and why?

CONCEPT D – “Just the facts”

CONCEPT H – “Sense of responsibility”

CONCEPT M – “A safe place”

Are there elements you would take from another concept that you would add to the one you liked best?

Which ad does the best job of making gun owners feel like they are part of the solution?

Is there anything else you would want to see in a Government of Canada ad on this topic?

Campaign URL (10 mins)

Additionally, I’d like to probe what you think of the URL that was at the end of each of the ads we talked just talked about, which was Canada.ca/firearms. There are some alternative URLs to that one that could also be used. I’m going to show you six possible URL on the screen. SHOW LIST OF URLs

Canada.ca/firearms

Canada.ca/reduce-gun-violence

Canada.ca/stop-gun-violence

Canada.ca/safe-and-secure-guns

Canada.ca/firearm-safety

Canada.ca/gun-safe-communities

Could you each read over these six URLs and type in the CHAT which two you would be most likely to click on.

MODERATOR TO TYPE “Which two of these URLs would you be most likely to click on?”

FOR EACH URL ASK: How many of you picked this as one of your two choices?

Why did you pick it?

Why did people NOT pick it?

What sort of information would you expect from a website with this URL?

4.0 Wrap up (10 mins)

We have discussed a lot of things today. Let’s go around the room one last time and you can each give us any final comments you might have on all the materials we looked at and on the whole issue of firearms and public safety.

On behalf of Public Safety Canada, I would like to thank you for taking part in this focus group discussion. The cash incentive we promised you will be sent electronically in the coming week. The report on this project will be available on the Library and Archives Canada website in Fall 2021.

February 24, 2021

Environics Research Group

Focus Groups on Firearms Regulation Communications – Round 2

Public Safety Canada

PN10914

Recruitment for online group discussion

Respondent Name:

Home #:

Business #:

Group #:

Recruiter:

GROUP 1

Gun owners (English)
Atlantic

Thursday, March 4

5-6:00 pm AST

GROUP 2

Gun owners (English)
Ontario

Thursday, March 4

6-7:00 pm EST

GROUP 3

Gun owners (English)
BC

Thursday, March 4

4:30-5:30 pm PST

GROUP 4

Gun owners (English)
Man/Sask

Friday, March 5

4-5:00 pm CST

GROUP 5

Gen Pop (English)
Atlantic

Saturday, March 6

12-1:00 pm AST

GROUP 6

Gen Pop (English)
Ontario

Saturday, March 6

12:30-1:30 pm EST

GROUP 7

Gen Pop (English)
Man/Sask

Monday, March 8

4-5:00 pm CST

GROUP 8

Gen Pop (English)
BC

Monday, March 8

3:30-4:30 pm PST

GROUP 9

Gun owners (French)
Quebec

Tuesday, March 9

5-6:00 pm EST

GROUP 10

Gen Pop (French)
Quebec

Tuesday, March 9

6:30-7:30 pm EST

NB: Groups 1 and 5 (Atlantic) - participants from at least two provinces per group;

Each session to have at least two participants from rural areas and all to have a mix of people from various parts of each province/region.

Seven recruits per session. $100 incentive.

Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 must be owners of firearms.

Groups 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 must be aged 18-70, NOT be owners of firearms and at least 2 per group should be parents of children under 18.

The session will last about one hour, and you will receive a cash gift of $100 as a thanks for attending the session.

21. Do you personally, or does someone in your household own a firearm of any kind (i.e., handgun, hunting rifle, long gun etc.)?

01 – Yes, I do GROUPS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 9

02 – I do not, but someone else in my household does GROUPS 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 10

03 – No, I do not GROUPS 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 10

22. Do you have any children under the age of 19 who live with you?

01 – Yes, I do AT LEAST TWO IN EACH OF GROUPS 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 10

02 – No, I do not

23. Are you or is any member of your household or your immediate family employed in:

Type	No	Yes
A market research, communications or public relations firm, or an advertising agency	1	2
Media (Radio, Television, Newspapers, Magazines, etc.)	1	2
Public Safety Canada	1	2
Law enforcement (i.e., police, RCMP)	1	2
A political party	1	2

IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE – THANK AND TERMINATE

24. What province and city do you currently live in?

SEE REGIONAL BREAKS FOR GROUPS

25. Which of the following best describes where you live

01 – An urban area

02 – A suburban area

03 – A small town, rural or remote area MINIMUM 2 PER GROUP

TRY TO GET MIX OF URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL PARTICIPANTS

26. Which language do you speak most often at home?

English 1 GROUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8

French 2 GROUP 9 AND 10

27. INDICATE:

Male 1

Female 2

GEN POP GROUPS 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 10 SHOULD BE 4/3 WOMEN TO MEN. TRY TO GET SOME WOMEN WHO OWN FIREARMS FOR FIREARMS GROUPS

28. We have been asked to speak to participants from all different ages. So that we may do this accurately, may I have your exact age please? (GET MIX)

_________. WRITE IN

Under 18 0 TERMINATE

18-24 years of age 1

25-34 years of age 2

35-44 years of age 3

45-54 years of age 4

55-64 years of age 5

65-74 years of age 6

75 years or more 7 TERMINATE

29. Could you please tell me what is the last level of education that you completed? (GET MIX)

Some High School only 1

Completed High School 2

Trade School certificate 3

Some Post-secondary 4

Completed Post-secondary 5

Graduate degree 6

30. Participants in group discussions are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts, how comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you... (read list)?

Very comfortable 1- MIN 5 PER GROUP

Fairly comfortable 2

Not very comfortable 3 - TERMINATE

Very uncomfortable 4 - TERMINATE

31. Have you ever attended a focus group or a one-to-one discussion for which you have received a sum of money, here or elsewhere?

Yes 1 MAXIMUM 4 PER GROUP

No 2 -> (SKIP TO Q.14)

IF Q11 YES ASK:

32. When did you last attend one of these discussions?

(TERMINATE IF IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS)

33. How many focus groups or one-to-one discussions have you attended in the past 5 years?

(SPECIFY)

IF 5 OR MORE, TERMINATE

ASK ALL

34. This focus group will require participants to join a videoconference using the Zoom platform using a desktop or laptop computer or a tablet. You will need internet access in a private and quiet location to take part in the study. We cannot provide this technology for you. Will you be able to access the Internet for a 1-hour audio-visual discussion using a desktop or laptop computer or tablet?

Yes 1 CONTINUE

No 2 TERMINATE

NOTE: A MOBILE PHONE WILL NOT WORK FOR THIS EXERCISE

35. The focus group will take place using a video-conference platform called Zoom. If you are not already a user, Zoom may request you to install some software at the site https://zoom.us/download . You can delete it after the focus group if you wish. How experienced and comfortable are you with using Zoom videoconferencing?

Very comfortable 1 CONTINUE

Somewhat comfortable 2 CONTINUE

Somewhat uncomfortable 3 THANK AND TERMINATE

Very uncomfortable 4 THANK AND TERMINATE

36. Sometimes participants in the focus group are also asked to type out their responses in the “chat” function. Is there any reason why you could not participate? If you need glasses to read or a hearing aid, please remember to bring them.

Yes 1 TERMINATE

No 2

37. I would like to invite you to attend the focus group session where you will exchange your opinions in a moderated discussion with other Canadians. The session will be recorded, and some other members of the research team may also observe the session, but your participation will be confidential. If you attend the session you will receive $100 to thank you for your time. It will be sent to you electronically. Do you consent to take part in the focus group? By agreeing to participate you are giving your consent to these procedures.

Yes 1

No 2 TERMINATE

38. We will contact you again before the date of the session to confirm your attendance. Note that this invitation is to you personally and you cannot have anyone else substitute for you. Do you consent to this?

Yes 1

No 2 TERMINATE

39. The session is about an hour (i.e., 60-minutes), but we are asking that all participants log into the Zoom online meeting 5 minutes prior to the start of the session. Are you able to log-in about 5 minutes prior to the start time?

Yes 1

No 2 TERMINATE

40. Could you please confirm your email address so I can send you login details for the Zoom web conference application?

E-mail address:

PLEASE RE-READ THE FULL ADDRESS BACK TO CONFIRM CORRECT SPELLING.
(NB: We will send the links to you early next week)

PLEASE ENSURE PARTICIPANTS ARE TOLD THE TIME OF SESSION IN THEIR TIME ZONE
SEE TIMES AND DATES ON PAGE 1

March 2, 2020

Environics Research Group Limited

Focus Groups on Firearms Communications – Phase 2

Public Safety Canada

PN10914

1.0 Introduction to procedures (10 minutes)

2.0 The Straight Facts – Success Check (30 minutes)

We are going to be looking at a few ads in this session that Public Safety Canada is currently developing and that are quite close to being finalized. These would be digital ads that you might see on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or on a Google search etc.

I will first share a video ad with you on your screen and I will play it a couple of times. After I’ve played it, I will ask you to answer some questions about the ad in the chat box where I will type in a question for you to answer.

MODERATOR WILL TYPE IN THE CHAT: “What is your gut reaction to this ad? How does it make you feel?”

OK, now that everyone has entered their answers, I’d like to ask each of you to elaborate on your gut reaction to the ad and how it made you feel.

Were there specific things you liked or did not like in the ad?

Now here is another question for you to answer in the chat:

MODERATOR WILL TYPE IN THE CHAT: “What is the main message you got from the ad? What was it telling you?”

Can you each elaborate on what you felt the main message of the ad was?

What do you think Public Safety Canada is trying to accomplish with this ad? What do you think their goal is?

Who do you think this ad is aimed at?

PROBE: Is this ad only aimed at people who currently own firearms or is the ad also relevant to the general population?

Was there a message in this ad that was more specifically aimed at gun owners?

What is the message in this ad to people who do not own guns?

Did this ad tell you anything you didn’t know before?

PROBE: Did it have any impact on your perceptions of firearms-related violence?

Were there any specific images or lines or facts or statistics from the ad that sticks in your mind?

What did you think of the use of charts and statistics in this ad concept? Were there any particular charts or stats that stood out for you?

PROBE:

1. Violent offences involving guns up 81% since 2009.

2. Gun-related violent crimes are 14% higher in rural than urban areas. NB: PROBE MORE ON THIS ONE

3. Break and enters with the purpose of stealing guns more than tripled between 2009 and 2018.

According to this ad what is the Government of Canada doing to address gun violence?

If you saw this ad, what would it make you do, if anything?

PROBE: Share it on social media, go to the website etc. (Did anyone notice the website at the end Canada.ca/firearms?)

3.0 Banner ads – Success Check (15 mins)

Here are some banner ads you might see online on the same topic. The first ones I will show you flip between two images. SHARE SCREEN SHOW BANNER ADS PAGE 1:

1. “Since 2009 B and Es…have tripled” (#A hand on gun, #B woman at range)

2. “Since 2009 B and Es…have tripled” (#A thief with crowbar, #B hunter)

What would be your reaction to seeing either of these ads while you might be on a website?

Which one would you be most likely to notice and click on? Why?

What do you think of the imagery in each ad? Is it clear what it is trying to depict?

Who do you feel these are aimed at?

PROBE GUN OWNERS: Is this banner ad aimed at people who own guns? How do you feel about that?

What is your reaction to seeing images of gun owners in the ad?

PROBE: Do you have any preference for the images in 1 or 2?

SLIDES A: Hand on gun vs thief with crowbar?

SLIDES B: Woman at range vs hunter?

Here is a slightly different version of these banner ads – here instead of it flipping between two slides – it is just one image. SHOW PAGE 2

What do you think of this version where information we saw on the first page is consolidated into a single slide?

Now, here is another set of banner ads you might see on Facebook or Instagram – these are just the images – there would be text underneath too SHOW PAGE 3

3. Arrows pointing up, map of Canada

4. Arrows pointing up, police car lights

5. Combination on gun safe

What do you think of these banner ads? Which one would you be most likely to click on?

Is it clear what the background images show?

PROBE: What is the meaning of the image in #5 (combo)?

4.0 Wrap Up (5 mins)

Let’s go around the room one last time and you can each give us any final comments you might have on the video and still‑image ads, and on the whole issue of firearms and public safety.