Introduction

Background

Issues relating to the regulation of firearms have been very controversial in Canada for the past 40-odd years. Many Canadians possess firearms for perfectly legitimate purposes (i.e., sport or hunting) and this is particularly the case in rural areas. As gun-related violence has grown, there have been more and more demand to find ways to restrict and regulate the availability of firearms, and this has led to clashes of values that have in the past divided Canadians along urban and rural lines and in other ways. In the late 1990s, the federal government establishment of a national long gun registry was highly controversial. More recently, there have been demands to restrict various types of assault style weapons.

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. A baseline study conducted by Environics Research in December of 2020 found that only one in ten Canadians had heard anything about any new measures by the government to address gun violence. PS is currently developing and implementing a national campaign that will take a phased approach to raise awareness and educate Canadians and firearm owners of the need to reduce violent crime by limiting illicit access to firearms. Campaign messages will focus on raising awareness about the ban on assault-style firearms, safe and legal firearms practices (such as secure storage, legal purchasing, permit requirements, etc.), and the buy-back program among firearms owners.

In support of this year’s campaign and future firearm‑related campaigns, Public Safety Canada commissioned Environics to conduct a pre-campaign baseline ACET to set a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of this 2022/23 advertising campaign. Additionally, Public Safety commissioned Environics to conduct an audience segmentation survey to better understand firearms owners and their attitudes towards the proposed buy-back program, as well as a series of focus groups with firearms owners to explore their attitudes towards the buy-back program and to test their reactions to potential creative elements to be used in a communications campaign.

Objectives

This research project will involve three key research objectives:

A. Formative research among firearms owners to profile the audience and inform the public awareness campaign to meet the needs of the target audience of firearms owners. This audience segmentation study has been designed to inform the portion of the public awareness campaign targeted at firearms owners and better understand their personal and group habits, dynamics and behaviours. This study also explored attitudes towards the buy-back program among the sub-set of firearms owners who could be eligible for the program.

B. Qualitative focus group research among firearms owners, designed to help Public Safety understand how the target audience (Canadian firearms owners) perceive the buy-back program, including their interest in participation, potential concerns and key program elements. This phase also tested buy-back creative concepts, to guide the direction of the campaign’s concepts and messaging and evaluate what elements resonate well with the target audience.

C. Pre-campaign evaluation will be used to set benchmarks for the 2022-2023 campaign, identify current levels of awareness and understanding of the Government of Canada’s buy-back program assess and track campaign performance. This was done using the advertising campaign evaluation tool (ACET), in accordance with the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, and is mandatory for all advertising campaigns with a media component of $1 million or more. NB: A post-campaign ACET will be completed following the buy-back advertising, which is to be done in the fiscal year 2022-2023.

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.

I. Detailed findings – Survey of firearms owners

A. Firearms ownership

1. Number of firearms owned

Half of Canadian firearms owners currently own one firearm. Of those who report currently owning more than one firearm, one-quarter say they currently own two firearms.

One half (49%) of firearms owners report owning just one firearm, and a similar proportion indicate they own more than one. One-quarter (26%) say they own two firearms, whereas one in ten (11%) say they own three. Smaller proportions say they own either four firearms (5%) or five (2%). Slightly under one in ten (6%) report owning more than five firearms.

Number of firearms owned

Q3. How many firearms do you currently own?	Total (n=2,001)
One (1)	49%
Net: more than 1	51%
2	26%
3	11%
4	5%
5	2%
More than 5	6%

Canadian firearms owners more likely to possess more than one firearm include higher proportions of those in the Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan), as well as those in the Atlantic region. Ownership decreases in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, with Alberta having the lowest proportion of citizens who own more than one firearm.

Those most likely to own more than one firearm include those in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (66%) and Atlantic Canada (61%), those in rural communities (63%), those 60 or older (63%), men (53%), and those whose current job involves firearms (61%).

2. Types of firearms owned

Six in ten firearms owners own a rifle; four in ten say they own a shotgun and the same amount say they own a handgun. Two in ten own a semi-automatic long gun.

Of those who own a firearm in Canada, 58 percent report owning a rifle. Equal proportions say they own a shotgun (43%) and/or a handgun (42%). Two in ten (19%) own a semi-automatic long gun.

Types of firearms owned

Q4. Which of the following types of firearms do you own?	Total (n=2,001)
Rifle	58%
Shotgun	43%
Handgun	42%
Semi-automatic long gun	19%
Other	1%
Don’t know	1%

Ownership of rifles is higher among those in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (75%), and in Atlantic Canada (74%), those living in rural communities (77%), those aged 45 or older (73%) and men (63%). Ownership of shotguns is higher among those in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (51%) and in Atlantic Canada (48%), French-speakers (69%), those in rural communities (59%) and those aged 45 or older (55%). Ownership of handguns is higher among those living in urban communities (49%), women (50%), and those with university degree (54%). It is notable that just 17 percent of French speaking firearm owners own a handgun (compared to 46 percent of English-speakers). Ownership of semi-automatic long guns is particularly high among those in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (35%), those with household incomes of $150K or more (29%), those with a job involves firearms (33%) and among those who owns five or more firearms (51%). It is notable that among those who only own one firearm, just seven percent own a semi-automatic long gun.

3. Length of time owning firearms

Just over four in ten firearms owners have owned their firearms for more than five years. Less than one in ten have owned their firearms for less than a year.

Four in ten Canadians who own firearms (44%) have owned a firearm for more than five years, three in ten (29%) have been owners for two-to-five years, and just under two in ten have been owners for one-to-two years (18%). A little less than one in ten have owned their firearms for less than a year (8%).

Length of time owning firearms

Q5. How long have you owned any firearms? Has it been…?	Total (n=2,001)
Less than a year	8%
One to two years	18%
Two to five years	29%
More than five years	44%
Don’t know	1%

Length of firearms is generally similar across subgroups, with some notable exceptions. The most significant differences are among age and community size and age groups, as higher proportions of those who have owned their firearms for a shorter amount of time include those living in urban communities and those aged 18-29. Alternatively, higher proportions of those who have owned their firearms for longer amounts of time are more likely to include suburban and rural communities, as well as those age 45-59 and 60 or older. Additionally, the number of firearms owned is linked with how long one is likely to have been a firearms owner: higher proportions of those with more than one firearm have owned firearms for more than five years.

Those most likely to have owned firearms for more than five years include: French-speakers (67%) Atlantic residents (52%), those in rural communities (72%), those aged 45 or older (81%), men (49%), those with college/tech/some university education (57%) and owners of five or more firearms (85%).

4. How firearms are obtained

Most have obtained their firearms by purchasing from a retailer or from an individual. Three in ten have inherited their firearms and one-quarter received them as a gift.

A majority of firearms owners (74%) have purchased their firearms from a retailer. Three in ten (31%) have inherited their firearms from family or friends, and one-quarter (24%) have purchased their firearms from an individual. Just over one in ten (13%) received their firearms as a gift. Less than one percent of owners have received firearms as a result of being issued by an employer for work, or for other reasons.

How firearms are obtained

Q6. How have you obtained your firearm(s)?	Total (n=2,001)
Purchased from retailer	74%
Inherited from family member/friend	31%
Purchased from individual	24%
Received as gift	13%
Issued by my employer for work	<1%
Other	<1%
Don’t know	<1%

All ways of obtaining a firearm listed in the survey are found in higher proportions among those in The Prairies (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and/or Alberta), which is due to higher percentages of firearms in those provinces. Understandably, those more likely to have obtained firearms in various ways are firearms owners with more than one firearm. A larger volume of those who purchase their firearms from retailers are “very” familiar with firearms regulations and have obtained their PAL – which are requirements to purchase firearms in-store.

5. How often firearms are used

Three in ten use their firearms at least monthly, whereas six in ten use their firearms less often.

A majority of firearms owners use their firearms less than once a month (59%), while three in ten use them monthly (28%), and two in ten 1 or 2 times monthly. More owners report they use their firearms a few times a year (36%) or once a year or less (12%), while a small minority uses them as frequently as once a week or more (8%).

How often firearms are used

Q7. On average, how often do you use your firearms?	Total (n=2,001)
Net: At least monthly	28%
Once a week or more	8%
1 or 2 times a month	20%
Net: Less often	59%
A few times a year	36%
Once a year or less	22%
Never	12%
Don’t know	<1%

Firearms owners who use their firearms at least monthly include large proportions of those in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, while those in Quebec are least likely. Those who frequently use their firearms are largely urban community members and in younger age groups (18-44, compared to those aged 45 and older). Those who use their firearms “less often” are more likely to include those in rural communities, and those age 45-59 and 60 or older.

6. Possession of a PAL (Possession and Acquisition License)

Eight in ten firearms owners currently have a valid up to date PAL

Most firearms owners possess a PAL (87%), with 79 percent stating their PAL number is valid and up to date and nine percent expressing some information is out of date. A minority say they do not possess a PAL (10%), with 5 percent elaborating that they had a PAL number in the past, but it has now expired, and the same amount say they never had a PAL number.

Possession of PAL

Q8. Do you currently have a valid PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) number?	Total (n=2,001)
Net: YES	87%
Yes, my PAL number is valid and up to date	79%
Yes, I have a valid PAL number, but some of my information is out of date	9%
Net: NO	10%
No, I had a PAL number in the past, but it has expired	5%
No, I have never had a PAL number	5%
Prefer not to say	2%
Don’t know	1%

Firearms owners who have their PAL are more likely to be in the younger age groups (ages 18-44), and/or have a job that involves the use of firearms. Those without their PAL tend to be older and to have less than a university education.

7. Possession of RPAL (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License)

Seven in ten firearms owners have a valid RPAL.

Just under three-quarters of firearms owners possess a RPAL (72%), with 64 percent stating their RPAL number is valid and up to date and 8 percent expressing some information is out of date. One-quarter of firearms owners declare they do not possess a RPAL (24%), with 4 percent indicating they had a RPAL number in the past, but it has now expired. A minority of 20 percent say they never had a RPAL number and have no need for one.

Possession of RPAL

Q9. Do you have a valid RPAL (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License) number?	Total (n=2,001)
Net: YES	72%
Yes, I have a valid and up to date RPAL	64%
Yes, I have a valid RPAL number, but some of my information is out of date	8%
Net: NO	24%
No, I had a RPAL number in the past, but it has expired	4%
No, I have never had a RPAL number and have no need for one	20%
Prefer not to say	2%
Don’t know	2%

The subgroup tendencies for those with and without their RPAL are quite similar to data regarding the PAL. Firearms owners who have their RPAL are in higher proportions in urban communities, in younger age groups (ages 18-44), among those with higher education, and among those who have a job that involves the use of firearms. Those without their RPAL have a higher likelihood to be in older age groups (45 and older), and those who have a college/tech/some university education or less.

8. Main reasons for owning firearms

The main reasons for owning firearms are target shooting for sport, self-defense and safety, hunting for sport and hunting for food.

Four in ten (39%) firearms owners cite target shooting for sport (recreational or competitive) as a main reason for owning a firearm, and nearly the same amount (37%) say safety/protection/self-defence is a main reason. Other primary reasons include hunting for sport (34%) and/or for food (28%), being gifted a firearm through inheritance (20%), being a collector (14%), hunting as part of Indigenous tradition (12%) or because it is work-related (11%).

Main reasons for owning firearms

Q10. People own firearms for many different reasons. Which of the following are the main reasons you own a firearm?	Total (n=2,001)
Target shooting for sport (recreational or competitive)	39%
Safety/protection/self-defense	37%
Hunting for sport	34%
Hunting for food	28%
Gifted through inheritance	20%
I’m a firearms collector	14%
Hunting as part of Indigenous tradition/treaty right	12%
Work-related (military or police service, animal control, etc.)	11%
To get rid of pesty animals on the farm	1%

Those most likely to cite target shooting for sport as a main reason to own a firearm include British Columbians (50%), those aged 45-59 (46%) and men (41%).

Those most likely to who cite safety/protection/self-defence as a main reason to own a firearm include Ontarians (44%), Albertans (48%), urban residents (44%), those aged 18-29 (43%) and aged 30-44 (46%), women (42%), those with household incomes of $100K or more (44%) and those who own just one firearm (42%)

Those most likely to cite hunting for sport as a main reason to own a firearm include French-speakers (54%), those aged 60 or older (41%) and those who own five or more firearms (49%).

9. Firearm activity – solo or social

Most firearms owners report they use their firearms alone. Two in ten say they mostly use their firearms in social settings and three in ten use them in solo and social setting equally.

Four in ten (41%) firearms owners report mainly using their firearms alone, rather than socially. Two in ten (21%) say they mostly use their firearms socially, and three in ten (29%) say they use their firearms both solo and socially. Just one in ten report not using their firearms at all.

Firearm activity – solo or social

Q11. When you use your firearms, is it mostly something you do alone as a solo activity, with others as a social activity, or is it both equally?	Total (n=2,001)
Mostly solo	41%
Mostly social	21%
Both solo and social equally	29%
Don’t use my firearms at all	10%

Proportions of those who use their firearms mostly alone remain similar across Canada’s provinces and territories, however higher proportions include urban communities. Using firearms more as a social activity is found in higher proportions in suburban communities.

B. Perceptions of regulations

10. Familiarity with firearms regulations

The vast majority of firearms owners say they are at least somewhat familiar with firearms regulations, with over half claiming to be very familiar.

An overwhelming majority (94%) of firearms owners say they are aware with firearms regulations. Of this percentage, 55 percent say they are “very familiar”, and 39 percent say they are “somewhat familiar.” Less than one in ten (6%) report they are unfamiliar with firearms regulations, with 5 percent saying they are “not very familiar” and 1 percent “not at all familiar.”

Familiarity with firearms regulations

Q15. There are a variety of regulations around the ownership, licensing, transporting, storage and safe use of firearms in Canada. How familiar are you with these firearms regulations?	Total (n=2,001)
Net: Familiar	94%
Very familiar	55%
Somewhat familiar	39%
Net: Not Familiar	6%
Not very familiar	5%
Not at all familiar	1%

Those who are most likely to say they a very familiar with firearms regulations include urban residents (60%), those aged 30-44 (60%), those whose job involves firearms (74%), those with five or more firearms (67%) and those who definitely have newly prohibited firearms (76%).

11. Perception of firearms regulations

While one-quarter of firearms owners report that regulations are too strict, over six in ten say they “strike the right balance” and ten percent say they are not strict enough.

One-quarter (24%) of firearms owners in Canada say the regulations are too strict, and another 10 percent feel that regulations are not strict enough. A majority (64%) say that regulations “strike the right balance."

Perception of firearms regulations

Q16. Would you say that the regulation of firearms (i.e., banning categories of firearms, licence verification, etc.) in Canada is too strict, not strict enough or strikes the right balance?	Total (n=2,001)
Too strict	24%
Strikes the right balance	64%
Not strict enough	10%
Don’t know	2%

Those most likely to feel that regulations are too strict include rural residents (35%), those aged 45-59 (32%), those whose job involves firearms (34%), those with five or more firearms (50%) and those who say they are “very familiar” with the regulations (29%).

12. Attitudes towards legality of types of firearms

Most firearms owners feel possession of all types of firearms should be legal in all or most cases, though there is less support for the legality of revolvers and semi-automatic handguns.

Large majorities believe that possession of the following types of firearms should be legal in all or most cases: manual action rifles and shotguns (79%), replica firearms (75%), semi-automatic rifles and shotguns (70%). There is less support for revolvers and semi-automatic handguns being legal and larger minorities feel possession of those should be illegal in all or most cases.

Attitudes on legality of types of firearms

Q17. 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?	Net: Illegal Total (n=2,001)	Illegal in all cases	Illegal in most cases	Net: Legal	Legal in most cases	Legal in all cases	Don't know
Semi-automatic handguns	41%	17%	24%	56%	35%	22%	3%
Revolvers	34%	11%	23%	62%	40%	22%	4%
Rifles and shotguns, that are semi-automatic action	27%	9%	18%	70%	42%	28%	3%
Replica firearms (e.g., airsoft, pellet, BB)	21%	9%	13%	75%	38%	36%	4%
Rifles and shotguns, that are manual action (e.g., pump, break)	18%	5%	12%	79%	41%	38%	3%

Those most likely to feel that semi-automatic handguns and revolvers should be illegal in all or most cases include French-speakers, those in rural communities, those aged 60 or older, and those who do not currently possess prohibited firearms.

13. Awareness of policies to address firearms-related violence

The vast majority of firearms owners have heard at least a bit about the ban on assault-style firearms and about the buy-back program and large majorities have also heard about various other federal government programs that address firearms related violence.

Three-quarters or more of firearm owners have heard at least a bit about all 11 of these initiatives. Awareness of the banning of “assault-style” firearms is particularly high with nine in ten having heard at least a bit about this and almost half (48%) having heard a lot. Awareness of the “buy-back program” is somewhat lower with 85 percent having heard at least a bit and 39 percent having heard a lot about this. A consistent 32 to 38 percent have also heard a lot about the other nine policies such as taking action against gang violence and expanding background checks to include a review of a firearms license applicant’s entire life history. Awareness is somewhat lower when it comes to cracking down on “straw purchasing”, new measures and funding to tackle gun smuggling and trafficking, and supporting provinces/territories that take action to prohibit handguns (19%).

Awareness of and support for policies to address firearms-related violence

Q19. The federal government has been working on policies to address firearms related violence. To what extent have you heard about each of these policies?	% Heard a lot about this Total (n=2,001)	% Heard a bit about this	% Had not heard about this at all
Banning “assault-style” firearms	48%	43%	9%
A “buy-back” program whereby the government will provide compensation for the collection of certain banned firearms	39%	47%	14%
Action against gun and gang violence (i.e., gang prevention programs, investments and funding, etc.)	38%	48%	15%
Expanding background checks to include a review of a firearms license applicant’s entire life history	38%	44%	18%
Requiring an “Authorization to Transport” restricted or prohibited firearms to any location other than a range or home after a purchase.	38%	46%	16%
Banning the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets	35%	49%	16%
Requiring businesses to maintain inventory/sales records of non-restricted firearms for tracing purposes	35%	49%	16%
Requiring a seller of non-restricted firearms to validate a buyer’s licence with the government	34%	47%	18%
Supporting provinces/territories that take action to prohibit handguns	33%	47%	19%
New measures and funding to tackle gun smuggling and trafficking.	33%	48%	19%
Cracking down on “straw purchasing” (when a firearm license-holder legally buys a firearm and the illegally resells it on the black market)	32%	44%	24%

Those most likely to have heard a lot about all the proposed policies include those in urban communities, those age 18-44, those with a household income of $80K or more, those with a university and/or post-graduate degree, those with a job involving firearms, those “very” familiar with firearms regulations, those with an up-to-date PAL, as well as those who have heard “a lot” of the buy-back program. It is notable that those aged 60 and over are more likely to have heard a lot about the ban on assault-style firearms but are less likely to have heard about any of the other measures. There is also a tendency for awareness of these measures to be consistently lower among French-speakers and among those who do not possess any newly prohibited firearms.

14. Support of policies to address firearms-related violence

Large majorities of gun owners support all 11 of the proposed measures to address firearms related violence in Canada. Three-quarters support banning “assault-style” firearms and also support the “buy-back” program.

Firearm owners were asked about the extent to which they support or oppose each of the eleven proposed measures to address firearms related violence in Canada. It is notable that support for these measures is very high across the board and ranges from a high of 87 percent supporting action against gun and gang violence to a relative low of 74 percent support for the federal government supporting provinces and territories that take action to prohibit handguns. It is notable that just 20 percent of firearm owners are at all opposed to the banning of assault-style firearms and 19 percent are opposed to the buy-back program.

Support of policies to address firearms-related violence

Q20. To what extent would you support or oppose each of these measures to address firearms related violence in Canada?	Net: % Support Total (n=2,001)	Strongly support	Somewhat support	Net: % Oppose	Somewhat Oppose	Strongly oppose
Action against gun and gang violence (i.e., gang prevention programs, investments and funding, etc.)	87%	52%	34%	11%	7%	4%
New measures and funding to tackle gun smuggling and trafficking.	85%	50%	35%	13%	9%	3%
Cracking down on “straw purchasing” (when a firearm license-holder legally buys a firearm and the illegally resells it on the black market)	83%	49%	35%	13%	8%	5%
Requiring businesses to maintain inventory/sales records of non-restricted firearms for tracing purposes	80%	43%	38%	17%	10%	7%
Requiring a seller of non-restricted firearms to validate a buyer’s licence with the government	80%	44%	36%	17%	11%	6%
Banning the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets	78%	43%	35%	19%	12%	7%
Expanding background checks to include a review of a firearms license applicant’s entire life history	77%	40%	37%	20%	13%	7%
A “buy-back” program whereby the government will provide compensation for the collection of certain banned firearms	77%	39%	38%	19%	10%	9%
Banning “assault-style” firearms	77%	44%	32%	20%	10%	10%
Requiring an “Authorization to Transport” restricted or prohibited firearms to any location other than a range or home after a purchase.	76%	39%	37%	21%	13%	8%
Supporting provinces/territories that take action to prohibit handguns	74%	39%	35%	23%	13%	10%

In general, support for all these measures tends to be higher among older people, French-speakers, those who are very familiar with firearms regulations, those who own just one gun, university graduates and those with higher incomes.

To the extent that there is opposition to the ban on assault-style firearms it is higher among rural residents (30%), those with household incomes below $80,000 (27%), those who own five or more firearms (45%) and those who own semi-automatic rifles (32%).

C. Sources of information

1. Current sources of news and information on firearms regulation

Most firearms owners say their main source of news and information on regulations around firearms are government websites, followed by family/friends/word of mouth.

Four in ten firearms owners say one of their main sources of news and information on firearms regulations is government websites (for example, RCMP and/or Public Safety Canada). Just two in ten (22%) say one of their main sources are family/friends/word of mouth, and the same amount (23%) say firearms in-store sales outlets are among their main sources.

Current sources of information on firearms regulation - General

Q12. What are your two main sources of news and information on regulations around firearms?	Total (n=2,001)	Main source	Second biggest source
Government websites (e.g., RCMP, Public Safety Canada)	41%	31%	10%
Firearms in-store sales outlets	23%	10%	13%
Family/friends/word of mouth	22%	10%	12%
TV/radio	15%	8%	7%
Social media (e.g., Facebook groups, Twitter, etc.)	14%	6%	8%
Newspaper/magazines	13%	5%	8%
Firearms advocacy groups	12%	5%	7%
Online forums (e.g., Reddit, Quora etc.)	11%	5%	6%
Blogs for gun owners	11%	5%	6%
Online firearms sales outlets	12%	5%	7%
Firearms trade shows	11%	5%	6%
Podcasts	7%	3%	4%
Don’t know	6%	<1%	6%

Firearms owners who say one of their main sources of news and information on regulations around firearms are government websites have higher proportions of those in rural communities, those aged 45 or older, and those who own just one firearm. Those who report one of their main sources are firearms in-store sales outlets are more likely include those from Quebec and Alberta, and French-speakers.

2. Preferred way hearing from the federal government on firearms regulations

Firearms owners would most like to hear from the federal government about regulations and programs from government websites or official announcements

Just under three in ten (28%) firearms owners say they would most like to hear from the federal government from government websites regarding firearm regulations and programs, above other communication methods. This is followed by official announcements (18%), social media (13%) and e-mail lists (13%).

Preferred way hearing from the federal government on firearms regulation

Q14. How would you most like to hear from the federal government when it comes to firearm regulations and programs? Would it be from…?	Total (n=2,001)
Government websites	28%
Official announcements	18%
Social media	13%
E-mail list	13%
Media coverage	10%
Mail-outs/newsletters (hard copy)	10%
Advertising	3%
Would not like to hear from them	<1%
Don’t know	3%

Firearms owners who indicate they prefer to hear from the federal government via government websites the most, have higher proportions of Albertans, those in urban communities, those age 30-44, those who own just one firearm, as well as those who support the buy-back program. Those who prefer social media are more likely to include urban communities, those age 18-44, those with a university or post-graduate degree, and those who have heard of the buy-back program.

3. Most frequently used social media platforms

Firearm owners most frequently use a variety of social media platforms, particularly Facebook and YouTube

A majority of firearms owners from the survey (60%) state they use the social media platform Facebook the most. The second most frequently used social media platform is YouTube (53%). This is followed by Instagram (34%),Twitter (33%) and TikTok (28%). Other social media platforms used less frequently include LinkedIn (20%), Snapchat (18%), and Reddit (16%). Just six percent say they do not use social media platforms at all.

Most frequently used social media platforms

Q13. What social media platforms do you use the most? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES PERMITTED)	Total (n=2,001)
Facebook	60%
YouTube	53%
Instagram	34%
Twitter	33%
TikTok	28%
LinkedIn	20%
Snapchat	18%
Reddit	16%
I don’t use social media	6%

Firearms owners who report they Facebook the most are more likely to include those in Quebec, rural communities, age 45-59, those with a household income of $40K-<$80K, those with a college/tech/some university education or less, and those with a job that does not involve firearms. Those who say they use YouTube the most include higher proportions of those in the Atlantic region and Ontario, those age 18-29, and those with a post-graduate degree. Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and Reddit are the most popular among younger Canadians (age 18-44).

D. Attitudes towards firearms violence

1. Level of concern about firearms-related violence

Most firearms owners are at least somewhat concerned that firearms-related violence is a threat to public safety in their local community.

Seven in ten (72%) firearms owners are very or somewhat concerned that firearms-related violence is a threat to public safety in their local community. Just under three in ten (27%) are not very or not at all concerned.

Level of concern about firearms-related violence

Q21. How concerned are you that firearms-related violence is a threat to public safety in your local community? Are you…?	Total (n=2,001)
Net: Concerned	72%
Very concerned	33%
Somewhat concerned	39%
Net: Not Concerned	27%
Not very concerned	16%
Not at all concerned	11%
Don’t know	1%

Those most likely to be very concerned that firearms-related violence is a threat to public safety in their local community include urban residents (43%), those aged 30-44 (41%), university graduates (40%) and those whose job involves firearms (60%). It is also notable that being very concerned with firearms-related violence is higher among those very familiar with firearms regulations (46%), those who have heard “a lot” about the buy-back program (43%), those who currently have prohibited firearms (59%) and among those will willingly take part in the buy-back program (53%).

2. Perceptions of highest rate of firearms violence

Most firearms owners think inner cities have the highest rate of firearms violence in Canada. Just ten percent think small towns and rural areas have the highest rates.

Six in ten (63%) of firearm owners believe inner cities have the highest rate of firearms violence in Canada, while two in ten (23%) say it is highest in suburban areas. Just one in ten firearm owners think the highest rate is found in small towns or rural areas.

Perceived highest rate of firearms violence

Q22. Which of the following do you think has the highest rate of firearms violence in Canada? Is it…?	Total (n=2,001)
In inner cities	63%
In suburban areas	23%
In small towns/rural areas	10%
Don't know	4%

Firearms owners mostly likely to think inner cities have the highest rates of firearms violence include those in rural communities, French-speakers, those aged 45 or older, and those who own five or more firearms. It is notable that among those living in rural areas and small towns and overwhelming 81 percent think inner cities have the highest rates of firearms violence and just six percent think that small towns and rural areas have the highest rates.

3. Main causes or sources of gun violence in Canada

Firearms owners feel the biggest causes/sources of gun violence in Canada are gang violence/organized crime and criminal activity such as break and entries.

Seven in ten (72%) firearms owners say the one of the biggest causes or sources of gun violence in Canada is gang violence/organized crime, while nearly the same amount (67%) say criminal activity is one of the biggest sources. One-quarter (24%) express that intimate partner violence/gender-based violence is one of the main causes of gun violence in the country, and the same amount (23%) communicate that suicide/mental health/self-harm is one of the main causes.

Main causes/sources of gun violence in Canada

Q23. What do you think are the main causes or sources of gun violence in Canada? Is it…?	Total (n=2,001)	Biggest	Second Biggest
Gang violence/organized crime	72%	58%	14%
Criminal activity (i.e., break and enters, robbery, etc.)	67%	23%	44%
Intimate partner violence/gender-based violence	24%	8%	16%
Suicide/mental health/self-harm	23%	6%	17%
Accidental death or harm	8%	2%	6%
Government	<1%	<1%	<1%
Other	<1%	<1%	<1%
Don’t know	2%	2%	2%

Firearms owners who say gang violence or organized crime are one of the main causes of gun violence in Canada include higher proportions of those living in areas that have the most firearms owned by citizens: Quebec and Alberta; older groups of Canadians including those age 45-59 and 60 or older; those with a household income of under $40K, and in relation, with either high school or less education, or those with college/tech/some university education. Those who report not owning any prohibited firearms are also among the groups most likely to say gang violence/organized crime are one of the main causes.

4. Federal government performance on addressing gun-related violence

Most firearms owners rate the performance of the government of Canada as excellent or good when it comes to introducing measures to address gun-related violence.

When it comes to introducing measures (i.e., regulations, policies, programs, etc.) to address gun-related violence in the country, over six in ten firearms owners (65%) say the federal government does either an excellent (27%) or good (38%) job. One in three (33%) say the government does either a fair (15%) or poor (17%) job.

Federal government performance on addressing gun-related violence

Q18. How would you rate the performance of the Government of Canada when it comes to introducing measures (i.e., regulations, policies, programs, etc.) to address gun-related violence?	Total (n=2,001)
Net: Excellent/Good	65%
Excellent	27%
Good	38%
Net: Fair/Poor	33%
Fair	15%
Poor	17%
Don’t know	2%

The sentiment that the federal government does an excellent or good job in introducing measures to address gun-related violence in Canada is highest among those living in urban communities (78%), those aged 30-44 (78%), those with a household income of $150K or more (74%), and those with a job that involves firearms (90%). It is also notable that this sentiment is higher among those who have heard of the buy-back program (74%), those who support the buy-back program (72%), those who have prohibited firearms (90%) and those who would willingly take part in the buy-back program (92%).

It is notable that those most likely to feel that the federal government does a fair or poor job in this regard include those living in rural areas and small towns (63%), those 60 and over (62%), French-speakers (45%), those who own five or more firearms (60%), and those who oppose the buy-back program (54%).

E. Attitudes towards buy-back program

1. Possession of newly-prohibited firearms

Half of firearms owners report that they definitely or probably currently own newly-prohibited firearms that they think could quality for the federal government’s buy-back program.

Five in ten (49%) of firearms owners report they definitely (35%) or probably (14%) currently own one or more of the newly-prohibited firearms (e.g., AR-15 style, Ruger Mini 14, Vz58 rifle, etc.) that they think could qualify for the federal government’s buy-back program and another seven percent are “unsure”. Four in ten (42%) report they “definitely do not own” firearms that could qualify for the buy-back program.

Own newly-prohibited firearms

Q24. Do you currently own any of the newly-prohibited firearms (e.g., AR-15 style, Ruger Mini 14, Vz58 rifle, etc.) which you think could qualify for the federal government’s “buy-back” program?	Total (n=2,001)
Net: Yes	49%
Yes, I definitely own firearms that could qualify	35%
Yes, I probably own firearms that could qualify	14%
I am unsure if I own firearms that could qualify	7%
No, I definitely do not own firearms that could qualify	42%
Prefer not to say	2%

The firearms owners who are most likely to say they definitely own any of the newly-prohibited firearms that could qualify for the buy-back program include those in Alberta (44%) and Manitoba/Saskatchewan (44%), those in urban communities (49%), those age 30-44 (50%), those with a household income of $150K or more per year (54%), and those with a university degree (46%). It is also notable that 38 percent of English-speakers own these newly prohibited firearms compared to just nine percent of French-speakers. This is also more prevalent among those who are “very” familiar with firearms regulations (48%), and those who have heard “a lot” about the buy-back program (48%).

2. Number of newly-prohibited firearms owned

Over half of those who own prohibited firearms currently own just one of these firearms and three in ten own more than one.

Among those who own a prohibited firearm or are unsure, over half (54%) report they think they currently own just one newly-prohibited firearm. Two in ten (18%) think they own two, and one in ten think they own three. Just 2 percent say they think they own more than five newly-prohibited firearms. One in ten (11%) are unsure if they currently own any.

Number of newly-prohibited firearms owned

Q25. How many of the newly prohibited firearms do you think you currently own?	Own forbidden firearms or are unsure (n=1,117)
1	54%
2	18%
3	10%
4	3%
5	1%
More than 5	2%
Prefer not to say	2%
Don't know	11%

Those most likely to have more than one prohibited firearm include those living in Atlantic Canada and Manitoba/Saskatchewan, those whose job involves firearms use, and those who oppose the buy-back program.

3. Willingness to participate in buy-back program

Over nine in ten of those who own newly prohibited firearms or are unsure if they own a newly prohibited firearm say they would participate in a buy-back program, and most would do so willingly. Less than one in ten would refuse to participate in the program at all.

Just under three-quarters (73%) of firearms owners from the survey who own prohibited firearms, or are unsure, say that they would participate willingly in a buy-back program. Under two in ten (17%) say they would participate only because it is mandatory, whereas under one in ten (7%) indicate they refuse to participate in a buy-back program at all, even if it is mandatory.

Willingness to participate in buy-back program

Q26. To help Canadians comply with the prohibition on newly-prohibited firearms, the federal government intends to implement a buy-back program. Would you…?	Own forbidden firearms or are unsure (n=1,117)
Participate willingly in a buy-back program	73%
Participate in a buy-back program, but only because it is mandatory	17%
Refuse to participate in a buy-back program at all, even if it is mandatory	7%
Don’t know	2%

Those most likely to say they would willingly participate in a buy-back program include those in Alberta (82%), those in urban communities (80%), those age 30-44 (81%), those with a household income of $100K or more (83%), those with a university degree (81%), and those who own just one firearm (80%). Willingness to participate is also higher among those who are very familiar with firearms regulations (80%), those who have heard “a lot” about the buy-back program (80%) and support it (81%), as well as those who say they “definitely” have prohibited firearms (85%).

Willingness to participate tends to be lower among those in suburban and rural communities and those with lower levels of education.

4. Motivation for participation in buy-back program

The main motivations for taking part in the program are the financial compensation, wanting to comply with the law and wanting to avoid legal penalties.

Half (51%) of firearms owners who either own forbidden firearms or are unsure if they do, say that financial compensation would motivate them the most to participate in a buy-back program. Slightly under half (46%) say they would be motivated to participate due to wanting to comply with the law, whereas four in ten (38%) say they are mostly motivated by a desire to avoid possible legal penalty. One-quarter say they are mostly motivated by support for the principle of banning these types of firearms, and similarly 12 percent indicate they want to get rid of the prohibited firearms. Under one in ten (7%) say that nothing would motivate them to participate in the buy-back program.

Motivation for participation in buy-back program

Q29. Which of the following would most motivate you to participate in a buy-back program?	Own forbidden firearms or are unsure (n=1,117)
Financial compensation	51%
Wanting to comply with the law	46%
Desire to avoid possible legal penalty	38%
Support for the principle of banning these types of firearms	25%
Wanting to get rid of these firearms anyways	12%
Nothing would motivate me to participate	7%
Other reason	<1%
Don’t know	2%

5. Reasons for refusal to participate in buy-back program

Among the small number who would refuse to participate in the buy-back program, the main reasons are that they don’t want to sell their firearms, feel they have a right to own these firearms, that the government should go after gangs and criminals instead or that they are responsible gun owners.

The seven percent of owners of prohibited firearms (n = 80) who say they would refuse to participate in the buy-back program were asked for the main reason for their refusal. The main reasons given are that they have no intention to sell their firearms/it belongs to them/they did not buy the firearms from the government to sell it back to them (26%), that Canada is a free country/they have the right to own firearms (15%), that the government should go after criminals/gangs instead of law-abiding citizens (14%), and that they are responsible firearms owners and therefore should not have to participate (13%). One in ten (9%) believe they will not be adequately compensated, and slightly under one in ten (8%) say they need their firearms to protect themselves. Other reasons given are that they like their firearm/it was gifted or inherited (6%), that “it is a nightmare” or “nothing good happens with the government (5%), and that they believe tax dollars are being wasted through the program (4%).

Reasons for refusal to participate in buy-back program

Q27. What is the main reason you would refuse to participate in a buy-back program?	Refuse to participate in a buy-back program (n=80)
No intention to sell/it belongs to me/didn't buy it from the government to sell it back to them	26%
It is a free country/I have the right to own firearms	15%
The government should go after criminals/gangs instead of law-abiding people	14%
I am a responsible firearm owner	13%
Wouldn't be adequately compensated	9%
I need it to protect myself	8%
I like my firearm/it was gifted/inherited	6%
It is a nightmare/nothing good happens with the government	5%
Tax dollars are being wasted here	4%
Other	10%
Don't know	15%

F. Implementation of buy-back program

1. Most important elements of buy-back program

The elements owners of prohibited firearms would most like to see in a buy-back program, include an easy way to initiate the application process, convenient drop off options, direct deposit payments, easy ways to ask questions and automatic text or email updates.

There is no clear consensus as to what owners of prohibited firearms think are the most important elements in a buy-back program. Almost equal numbers say that the most important elements they would like to see would include an easy way to initiate the application process (31% 1^st or 2^nd most important), convenient drop-off options for returning firearms (30%), direct deposit payments (30%), easy ways to ask questions and get answers about the program (30%), automatic text or email updates on verification and payment progress (28%) and the availability of technical information (25%). A smaller proportion say an important element would be group information sessions (19%).

Most important elements of buy-back program

Q32. Which of the following are the two most important elements that you would like to see in a buy-back program?	Own forbidden firearms or unsure (n=1,117)	1^stMost Important Element	2^nd Most Important Element
Easy way to initiate the application process (i.e., call a 1-800 number to create an application, easy online portal, etc.)	31%	15%	16%
Convenient drop-off options for returning firearms	30%	16%	14%
Direct deposit payments	30%	15%	15%
Easy ways to ask questions and get answers about the program (i.e., toll-free telephone line, online Q and A)	30%	14%	16%
Automatic text or email updates on verification and payment progress	28%	14%	14%
Availability of technical information	25%	13%	12%
Group information sessions	19%	10%	10%
Don’t know	4%	4%	4%

There are only modest demographic patterns in response to this question. Younger people are somewhat more likely than older people to value direct deposit payments and automatic text updates.

2. Buy-back program registration

Most owners of prohibited firearms would be more likely to register for a buy-back program by completing the process completely online, as opposed to completing the process by phone.

A majority of owners of prohibited firearms would be more likely to register for a buy-back program by completing the process completely online (58%). Two in ten (22%) say they would be more likely to complete the registration process completely over the phone (i.e., 1-800 number), while 15 percent say they would be more likely to register via a combination of online and phone support.

Buy-back program registration

Q31. To register for a buy-back program, would you be more likely to…?	Own forbidden firearms or unsure (n=1,117)
Complete the process completely online	58%
Complete the process completely over the phone (1-800 number)	22%
Use a combination of online and phone support to participate	15%
Don’t know	5%

3. Preferred method of turning in firearms for buy-back

A large majority would prefer to turn in their prohibited firearms in person. Just two in ten would prefer a virtual online/contactless process.

Three-quarters of owners of newly prohibited firearms say that if they were to turn in their prohibited firearm as part of a buy-back program, they would prefer to do so in person (e.g., turning in the prohibited firearm to a person physically). Two in ten say they would prefer to do so virtually (e.g., using online communications and contactless pick-up methods).

Preferred method of turning in firearms for buy-back

Q30. If you were to turn in your prohibited firearm as part of a buy-back program, how would you prefer to do so?	Own forbidden firearms or unsure (n=1,117)
In person (e.g., turn in the prohibited firearm to a person)	75%
Virtually (e.g., using online communications and contactless pick-up methods)	20%
Don’t know	5%

Firearms owners who own prohibited firearms or are unsure if they own prohibited firearms who express they would prefer to turn in their prohibited firearms in person are more likely to include higher proportions of those in Manitoba/Saskatchewan, those age 30-44, those who are “very” familiar with firearms regulations, who possess an up-to-date PAL, as well as who have heard “a lot” about the buy-back program and support it.

4. Disposing of newly-prohibited firearms

Most would prefer to dispose of their newly-prohibited firearm(s) by surrendering them for compensation. Smaller proportions would prefer to deactivate their firearms or surrender them for no compensation.

Over half (55%) of owners of newly prohibited firearms who would participate in a buy-back program say that they prefer to dispose of their newly-prohibited firearm(s) by surrendering the firearm for compensation. Another 19 percent would prefer to deactivate or destroy the firearm at their own expense and 19 percent would surrender the firearm to the police without compensation.

Disposing of newly-prohibited firearms

Q28. How would you prefer to dispose of your newly-prohibited firearm(s)?	Would participate in buy-back program (n=1,037)
Surrender the firearm for compensation	55%
Deactivate/destroy the firearm at my own expense	19%
Surrender the firearm to the police for no compensation	19%
Export the firearm to another country for compensation/credit	3%
Return the firearm to the manufacturer	1%
Don’t know	3%

These findings do not vary very much by demographics. There is some tendency for the following groups to prefer to deactivate their firearms: those in Manitoba/Saskatchewan (30%), those whose current job involves firearms (29%) and those who oppose the buy-back program (27%).

5. Where/how to turn in prohibited firearms

Those turning in their prohibited firearms as part of a buy-back program, would prefer to do so in a federal government centre, a local police station, a specific community event, local RCMP detachment, firearm dealer or a retailer.

There is no clear consensus as to where those who would turn in their prohibited firearm as part of a buy-back program would prefer to do so. Most would prefer to do so at a federal government centre (32%), followed by a local police station (26%), at a specific firearm collection community event (25%), at a local RCMP station/detachment (23%), at a firearm dealer/specialty store (21%),at a firearm retailer (20%), or contactless pick-up (20%). Smaller proportions would prefer to turn in their prohibited firearms at a firearm manufacturer (18%), or at a local gun club/firing range (17%).

Where/how to turn in prohibited firearms

Q33. If you were to turn in your prohibited firearms, where and how would you prefer to turn it in?	Own forbidden firearms or unsure (n=1,117)
Federal government centre (e.g., regional Service Canada office)	32%
Local police station	26%
At a specific firearm collection community event (e.g., held at community centre, conference centre, etc.)	25%
Local RCMP station/detachment	23%
Firearm dealer/specialty store	21%
Firearm retailer (e.g., sports store)	20%
Contactless pick-up methods	20%
Firearm manufacturer	18%
Local gun club/firing range	17%
Other	<1%
I wouldn’t	1%
Don’t know	2%

It is notable that those living in urban centres tend to prefer to turn in their prohibited firearms to a federal government office, while those living in rural areas are more likely to prefer turning in their firearms at a local RCMP detachment.

6. Preferred method of getting rid of any firearms

When firearms owners as a whole are asked about how they would prefer to get rid of any of their firearms, including those that remain legal, they mostly prefer to do so by participating in a government program for compensation, selling to a Canadian firearm retailer or broker, giving it to a friend or family member surrendering them to the police or including them as an inheritance.

This question was posed of all firearm owners, including those who do not currently own prohibited firearms and they were asked how they would prefer to get rid of any of their firearms, newly prohibited or still legal. The most common responses were by participating in a government program for compensation (30%), selling it to a Canadian firearms retailer or broker (27%), giving it to a friend, family member or colleague (22%), including their firearms as an inheritance (20%), surrendering the firearms to the police (20%), selling firearms on the private market (18%), selling to a friend, family member or colleague (17%), and exporting it to a foreign retailer or broker (8%). Fourteen percent say they do not intend to dispose of any of their firearms.

Preferred method of getting rid of any firearms

Q34. If you were to want to get rid of any of your firearms (newly prohibited or still legal), how would you prefer to do it?	Total (n=2,001)
Participate in a government program for compensation	30%
Sell it to a Canadian firearms retailer or broker	27%
Give it to a friend/family member/colleague	22%
Include as an inheritance	20%
Surrender it to the police	20%
Sell it on the private market	18%
Sell to a friend/family member/colleague	17%
Export it to a foreign retailer or broker	8%
I don’t intend to dispose of any of my firearms	14%
Other	<1%
Don’t know	3%

The preference for getting rid of any of firearms by participating in a government program for compensation is higher among those with a household income of $150K or more, those with a university degree or post-graduate degree, and among those who support the buy-back program.

G. Profile of firearms owners

1. Agreement with values statements

Firearm owners have a mix of views on a series of statements that measure core values.

In this segment of the survey, firearm owners were asked to read a series of ten statements that measure peoples’ core socio-cultural values and to express the extent to which they agree or disagree with them. The purpose of this was to assess how firearm owners in Canada as a whole feel about these statements but also to see to what extent those who oppose the buy-back program differ from those who support the buy-back program.

In general, most firearm owners surveyed agree with statements that speak to more socially conservative values. Most put a high importance on protecting traditional values and activities (82% agree), are concerned that governments are collecting too much personal information (72% agree) and agree that when something is run by the government it is usually inefficient and wasteful (67%). However, firearm owners also show high levels of agreement with statements that speak to more progressive values. Large majorities agree that post-secondary education should be free and accessible to everyone (77%) and believe climate change is an important issue and we need to do more to protect the environment (76%). It is also notable that three-quarters of firearm owners (75%) agree that owning a firearm is a privilege and not a right.

Eight in ten (78%) firearm owners agree that Canada is a safe and resilient country. There is less agreement with the statement “I tend to hold the same opinions on most issues as my friends and family” (67%), “I feel like I have a real say in what elected officials do” (56%) and “the information I get from social media sources is trustworthy and I share it” (50%).

Agreement with values statements

Q35. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements that deal with a variety of other topics?	Net: Agree (n=2,001)	Strongly Agree	Some- what Agree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Net: Disagree	Some- what Disagree	Strongly Disagree
It is important to protect traditional values and activities.	82%	39%	43%	13%	5%	4%	1%
I feel Canada is a safe and resilient country.	78%	35%	43%	14%	8%	5%	3%
Post-secondary education should be free and accessible to everyone.	77%	40%	37%	14%	9%	5%	4%
I believe climate change is an important issue and we need to do more to protect the environment.	76%	41%	35%	14%	10%	5%	5%
Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right.	75%	41%	35%	13%	11%	7%	5%
I am concerned that governments (at all levels) are collecting too much personal information.	72%	34%	37%	17%	11%	7%	4%
When something is run by the government (at any level), it is usually inefficient and wasteful.	67%	31%	36%	20%	13%	8%	4%
I tend to hold the same opinions on most issues as my friends and family.	67%	26%	41%	22%	11%	9%	2%
I feel like I have a real say in what elected officials do.	56%	23%	33%	17%	27%	13%	14%
Information I get from social media sources is trustworthy and I share it.	50%	21%	29%	19%	31%	15%	16%

In general, agreement with the more socially conservative statements tends to be higher among firearm owners in Manitoba/Saskatchewan and Alberta. Agreement with all the statements tends to be consistently higher among urban residents, 30-44 year olds, those with higher household incomes, university graduates, and those whose job involves firearms. Agreement is also with all the statements is also higher among those who are very familiar with firearms regulations.

As the table below demonstrated, there are also some notable differences between those who support and those who oppose the buy-back program when it comes to their response to these values statements. Those who oppose the buy-back program are much less likely to trust information they get from social media (33% compared to 56%), feel like they have a real say in what elected officials do (33% compared to 63%), feel that they hold the same opinions on most issues as their friends and family (53% compared to 72%), that owning a firearm is a privilege and not a right (49% compared to 83%), believe climate change is an important issue and we need to do more to protect the environment (50% compared to 84%), that post-secondary education should be free and accessible to everyone (58% compared to 82%) and to feel that Canada is a safe and resilient country (62% compared to 83%).

Agreement with values statements by support/opposition for buy-back

Q35. To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements that deal with a variety of other topics?	Net: Agree (n=2,001)	Support buy-back program	Oppose buy-back program
It is important to protect traditional values and activities.	82%	84%	77%
I feel Canada is a safe and resilient country.	78%	83%	62%
Post-secondary education should be free and accessible to everyone.	77%	82%	58%
I believe climate change is an important issue and we need to do more to protect the environment.	76%	84%	50%
Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right.	75%	83%	49%
I am concerned that governments (at all levels) are collecting too much personal information.	72%	73%	71%
When something is run by the government (at any level), it is usually inefficient and wasteful.	67%	68%	67%
I tend to hold the same opinions on most issues as my friends and family.	67%	72%	53%
I feel like I have a real say in what elected officials do.	56%	63%	33%
Information I get from social media sources is trustworthy and I share it.	50%	56%	33%

2. Participation in other activities

Firearms owners participate in many other activities, especially fishing, hiking, and/or camping, hunting and boating. Other popular activities include video games that feature firearms, in-person shows about outdoor activities, sport-shooting events, gun shows, gun collecting, paint ball and laser tag.

When asked about the activities they participate in, most firearms owners also engage in fishing (70%), hiking (66%), camping (63%) and hunting. Large proportions also engage in boating (49%), video games that feature firearms (46%), in-person shows about outdoor activities (46%), sport shooting events (42%), gun shows (35%), gun collecting (34%), paint ball (32%), and laser-tag (30%).

Participation in other activities

Q36. Do you regularly participate in any of the following activities?	Total (n=2,001)
Fishing	70%
Hiking	66%
Camping	63%
Hunting	56%
Boating and related activities	49%
Video games that feature firearms	46%
In-person shows about outdoor activities (e.g., cottage, boating etc.)	46%
Sport-shooting events and activities	42%
Gun shows	35%
Gun collecting	34%
Paint ball	32%
Laser-tag	30%
None of the above	5%

It is notable that those who definitely own newly prohibited firearms are much more likely to engage in video games that feature firearms (64%), sport shooting events (61%), gun shows (58%), gun collecting (57%), paint ball (42%), and laser-tag (42%).

II. Detailed findings – qualitative phase

A. New firearms prohibition and buy-back

1. Firearm ownership and usage

Participants varied in the number and types of firearms they reported owning and how they used them. For example, some had only one hunting rifle that they would use to hunt in season (e.g., moose, deer etc.). Others had several hunting rifles that they would use for hunting different types of game and birds. Some who lived on farms or ranches reported having a gun they would use to deter animals they regarded as pests such as gophers, rabbits and small birds that would eat their crops. Some participants, particularly those living in the far north, reported having a gun for personal protection. They did not mean protection from other people, but rather from dangerous animals such as bears that they might encounter in the bush.

There was also a small number of participants who owned firearms that they never used at all. These were mostly people who had inherited a gun collection or those who had hunted at one time, and had given it up as a past time. While hunting was by the far the most common way in which participants used their guns, there were other uses that were reported. Some used their guns for sport shooting (e.g., skeet shooting), target practice and would go to shooting ranges.

Most described how having a gun had been a part of their life since childhood. They often described having grown up in a rural area where their parents had always had guns and how using a gun and going hunting was an integral part of their culture and was a “way of life”. Others were more recent gun owners and described having acquired a gun after having married into a family where hunting and sport shooting was a common past time or having taken up hunting or sport shooting through friends they had made.

It was notable that while some gun owners living in urban areas clearly felt that they were part of a minority, for people living in rural areas and especially for those living in the territories, having a gun was seen as more of a social norm. In the territories, participants reported that virtually everyone had a gun and that it was virtually a necessity. Living in the far north often involves hunting and also involves self-defence from dangerous predators such as bears. People described how having a gun in that environment was not at all something that set them apart from the larger population, it was the norm. Gun owners in urban Canada sometimes felt stigmatized or misunderstood by the broader population, but in northern and remote communities that was not the case.

There was a minority of participants who owned a larger number of firearms and who often also reported that they had one or more newly prohibited firearms in their collections. In most sessions there were a couple of participants who reported that they currently owned an assault-style firearm such as an AR-15. Those who owned assault-tyle firearms typically described a lifestyle that was much more centred around their firearm activities. They were often members of gun clubs, spent a lot of money on their collections, felt they had gone through a lot of “red tape” to get their Restricted PAL and spent a lot of time with other gun owners for activities including target practice sport shooting, such as skeet shooting. Some even mentioned travelling on holiday to the U.S. which they described as having less restrictive gun laws where they could feel free to openly use their firearms where they wanted.

It was also notable how many firearms owners described a highly emotional attachment to their guns. This was particularly the case for those with very large gun collections, many of whom had prohibited firearms. Some described their firearms in glowing terms and spoke of the craftsmanship and design of them and what their capabilities were. For the owners of newly prohibited firearms, being a firearm owner was often an integral part of their identity. Those who possessed newly prohibited guns were more likely to be politicized, to follow gun blogs and to have a very hostile attitude towards the ban on assault-style firearms.

It was also clear that many firearms owners were very sensitive to how they are viewed and depicted by the larger society. They described how they felt that most Canadians know nothing about guns and have many misconceptions and stereotypes about people who own guns. This sentiment was particularly common among those who owned a lot of guns and who personally identified with the firearms culture. They described how they felt that many of the gun control initiatives from the federal government seemed to be designed to stigmatize law abiding gun owners and make them scapegoats for rising crime rates.

2. Awareness of assault-style firearms ban and buy-back

In each session, participants were asked to volunteer what new federal government firearms-related policies or restrictions they had heard of. Most participants mentioned having heard something about the recent prohibition of a new class of firearms that were described as “semi-automatic” or “assault-style” firearms. Awareness of this new prohibition was universal among those who owned prohibited types of firearms. While most of the more casual firearm owners, who only had legal firearms they used for hunting, were also aware of the new prohibition, some did not know of it or were only very peripherally aware of the ban. Several participants made specific reference to the “OIC” or Orders in Council that was the process by which the ban had been announced.

There was little regional difference in the extent to which participants had heard about the ban on assault-style firearms. Awareness was lower in the territories and Quebec sessions where very few participants possessed the types of firearms that were being banned. In general, it was clear that the news of the ban had largely permeated the community of firearm owners. Some of the more casual firearm owners had heard about the ban from news reports and from having seen general Government of Canada advertising about actions to make Canada safer. Others had heard about it from gun owner blogs and advocacy groups or from friends who also owned guns. It was noted several times that the ban had been an issue in the recent federal election and that had also made more people aware. Those who only possessed a hunting rifle often remarked that they knew about the ban but paid little attention to it since it did not affect them. A small number of firearm owners who did not have prohibited guns expressed some concerns that this ban could be a first step towards banning other more ubiquitous types of firearms.

Awareness of the buy-back program was lower. While many participants had heard something vague about there being a buy-back program, most did not know any details. Some were under the impression that the government had not yet figured out the logistics or how exactly to evaluate what the buy-back prices would be. Those who owned prohibited firearms were much more likely to have heard of the plan for a buy-back program, but they also noted that the program still did not actually exist and that the details about it remained unknown. Some mentioned that the deadline to dispose of the newly prohibited firearms was April 30, 2022, but that details of a buy-back program were still yet to be released. A couple of participants also mentioned having heard that the prohibited firearms could be deactivated as well as surrendered as part of the buy-back program, though when people refer to a “buy-back program” they are typically talking about the option whereby a gun is returned for compensation. Awareness of the buy-back program was also lower among participants in Quebec and in the territories. As has been noted previously, few participants in these groups had ever owned the newly banned types of firearms and they were much less politicized around gun related issues.

3. Reaction to the assault-style firearms ban

In general, reactions to the ban on assault-style firearms were quite negative, particularly on the part of those who currently own the types of firearms being banned. Most participants felt that the ban was unlikely to make a difference at all in the level of gun violence in Canada and that it was politically motivated in order for the federal government to give the appearance of taking action to reduce gun violence. It was sometimes dismissed as “theatre” and as a “propaganda tool”. Some went so far as to say that they felt this ban on assault-style firearms was the first step towards an eventual prohibition of all firearms. Those who do not personally own banned firearms are more passive in their opposition to the policy as it does not directly affect them.

Many participants stressed how careful, safety-conscious, and law-abiding they are about their use of firearms. They described how heavily regulated firearm use already is in Canada and all the steps involved in obtaining a PAL as well as an RPAL. They felt that the firearm owners who would be willing to comply with the new prohibition are not the ones causing gun-related violence in Canada.

A few participants thought the ban was in response to various mass shootings and noted that Australia and New Zealand had also banned some classes of firearms after mass shootings in those countries. However, almost all participants were highly sceptical that this ban would actually make a dent in the number of shootings in Canada. Most were under the impression that the vast majority of violent crimes committed with guns are done by criminals with illegally obtained firearms that had often been smuggled in the from the US. They felt that law abiding gun owners who would follow the rules and surrender their assault-style firearms would almost never be the source for guns used for criminal purposes.

Participants expressed several other objections to the ban on assault-style firearms. Some noted that there was not really such a thing as an “assault-style” gun and that it was arbitrarily prohibited guns based on their aesthetic appearance rather than over their functionality. They felt that this was a case of the government trying to make it look like it was being pro-active because it was banning some “scary looking” guns. Others objected because they felt that they and many other gun owners had legally purchased these newly banned firearms in good faith and now felt criminalized. Many described having spent a lot of money on some of their banned firearms and they were very sceptical that the government would ever fairly compensate them for that. Others felt that the ban was a violation of their civil rights, and that the government was going confiscate their legally obtained property. Some felt it was still quite unclear which firearms had been banned and wondered if they could inadvertently end up with criminal records for not surrendering some of their firearms.

The most frequent criticism of the ban was tied to how many participants felt that they were being stigmatized, demonized and turned into scapegoats for risings crime rates. Many noted that most Canadians who do not own guns, know very little about guns and that they assume that gun owners are “gun nuts” who are hoarding guns for use in mass shootings. As was noted later in the sessions when the participants were shown creative concepts promoting the buy-back program, they were very sensitive to what impression the general public gets of firearm owners. Some who felt that the ban was entirely politically-motivated, also thought that the ban was likely to be reversed in the future if there was a change of government.

4. Reaction to the buy-back program

As noted, while most participants had at least some vague awareness of the fact that a buy-back program was being planned, they felt that too many details of the program were missing for them to be able to provide an opinion about it. There were many outstanding questions about the program that were raised by participants who owned newly banned firearms and therefore had a stake in the roll-out of the program. Some resented the whole premise of the program, as they opposed the ban and they pointed out that it was a misnomer to call it a “buy-back program” since they had never bought their guns from the government in the first place.

There was a lot of scepticism about whether any buy-back program could ever fairly compensate owners for the real value of their newly prohibited firearms. Many expected to be offered just a token amount. They noted that the types of firearms that have been prohibited are usually quite expensive (i.e., thousands of dollars) and that it could be very challenging to evaluate them. In many cases the owners of these firearms have spent a lot of additional time and money upgrading and adding customizations to these firearms, making them even harder to fairly evaluate. In other cases, they may be collectors’ items and could be considered priceless. There were also concerns raised that if in fact the federal government did offer fair compensation for newly prohibited firearms it could end up being an extremely expensive program for taxpayers. Some felt that the government may underestimate the sheer number of newly prohibited firearms that are in circulation in Canada and that the cost of compensating owners for all of them could be gigantic.

The program elements that participants most wanted to know about included:

· A clear explanation of the rationale for the prohibition and buy-back with evidence of how it would help reduce gun violence

· Access to a comprehensive, searchable list of prohibited firearms, ideally a utility where a model number could be entered and get instant information on its value and status

· Examples of the how much compensation might be offered for various types of newly prohibited firearms

· Consequences for non-compliance with the program

· Deadlines for compliance and when the buy-back option would expire

· Process of how firearms would be surrendered and how money would be transferred

Some participants who had been following this issue closely also expressed concerns about the timing of the launch of any proposed buy-back program. They noted that the current law requires surrender of firearms by April 30 but that there was still no buy-back program. Several people who would be personally affected by the ban wanted to know more both about how the buy-back program would work but also about the penalties and consequences for non-compliance. They wanted to know if they risked a lifetime ban on possession of firearms or if they could get a criminal record.

Another issue that was explored was how exactly newly prohibited firearms would be surrendered. The vast majority of participants preferred for there to be some sort of physical hand-off. They felt that handling firearms was a very serious matter, and they would want to surrender their gun to a human being – whether for compensation or deactivation. The notion of a contactless delivery was largely rejected with many commenting that they worried about a package containing a banned gun being intercepted in the mail or going awry. That being said, there were some concerns raised about where exactly guns could be surrendered. While participants in more rural communities suggested surrendering guns to a local RCMP detachment, there were also concerns about walking into any sort of police or RCMP station with a weapon. There was an acknowledgment that the hand-off would likely have to be in person but would need to involve some protocols around how the transaction was to take place. They wanted clear information and step-by-step instructions on how to comply and take part in the buy-back.

As noted, many participants expected the buy-back program to offer only limited or nominal compensation and that they would never recover their original investment. Some were resigned to the idea that even if this was the case, any compensation was better than nothing. Some also mentioned that they might prefer to have their gun decommissioned since in some cases it had some sentimental value, and they might want to keep it rather than having it be destroyed or melted down.

Some also mused about how easy it would be claim that a particular firearm was worth far more than they had actually paid. Others said that they would likely take their prohibited gun apart and use parts to reassemble other guns and only return the part of the gun that was the essential part containing the serial number.

Most participants indicated that they would grudgingly comply with the law and surrender their banned firearms and try to get what compensation they could. They noted that they and the vast majority of firearm owners were law-abiding and would follow the law to the letter even if they disagreed with it. However, some hinted that they might hold on to their prohibited firearms and wait to see if there was a change of government. They assumed that the ban might not be permanent and that a future government might revoke the ban in which case they could go back to using it.

There was quite a bit of awareness of similar bans and buy-backs in other jurisdictions. Many had heard of this being done in Australia and New Zealand and wondered if it had also been done in any European countries. There were mixed views on whether these had been successful. Some had heard that the prohibition and buy-back had been very successful in these jurisdictions, and others had heard that only a small proportion of banned firearms had actually been turned in.

One other topic that was explored was whether participants thought that the buy-back program ought to be open to all firearms, including those that are still perfectly legal. Most were not in favour of this. They noted that anyone wanting to dispose of a legal firearm had many existing options and that such an open-ended program could end up being very expensive for the government to maintain on an ongoing basis. The consensus was that managing a limited buy-back program for newly prohibited firearms was going to be enough of a challenge without expanding the program to include all firearms. To the extent that there was any interest at all in a more universal buy-back program it was for situations where someone might inherit a firearm and not know what to do with it.

B. Creative concepts and names/taglines

1. Tagline and program names

After some initial discussion about overall awareness of the ban on assault-style firearms and of the existence of a plan for a buy-back program, participants were shown a list of possible program names and associated taglines. Seven options were shown in English and ten were shown in French. They were asked to identify which names and taglines they felt was the most appealing and attractive to them and did the best job of describing the program, making them want to know more.

The list of tagline and program name combinations that were shown in each language are listed below and ranked in order of most to least appealing to participants.

Tagline and program names – English (Most to least appealing)

1. (G.) Canada’s Prohibited Firearm Buy-back Program: Reducing the Risk

2. (B.) Firearm Safety Matters: Prohibited Firearm Buy-back Program

3. (E.) Securing Safe Communities: Firearms Compensation and Disposal Program

4. (F.) National Firearm Action Initiative – Reducing the Risk: Buy-back Program

5. (A.) Action for a Safer Future: Prohibited Firearm Amnesty

6. (D.) Target a Safer Tomorrow: Prohibited Firearms Compensation Program

7. (C.) A Safe Canada Matters: Assault-style Firearm Ban and Disposal

Tagline and program names – French (Most to least appealing)

1. (J.) Loi sur les armes à feu : protection et indemnisation

2. (H.) Mission armes à feu prohibées : indemnisation et cession

3. (B.) La sécurité avant tout : programme de rachat des armes à feu prohibées

4. (G.) Réduire le risque : Initiative nationale sur les armes à feu

5. (C) Votre sécurité, notre priorité : réglementation des armes à feu de style armes d’assaut

6. (D) Pour un avenir plus sûr : programme d’indemnisation des armes à feu prohibées

7. (E) Communautés en sécurité : programme d’indemnisation et de cession d’armes à feu

8. (F) Réduire les risques : Programme canadien de rachat d’armes à feu prohibées

9. (I) Sécurisons nos communautés : programme de rachat

10. (A) Passons à l’action : période d’amnistie pour les armes à feu prohibées

It should be noted that many participants made it clear that they did not “like” any of the proposed program names and taglines as they rejected the whole premise of the program being promoted. They opposed the prohibition of assault-style firearms, and they were highly sceptical of the buy-back program and how it would work.

References to “safety” and “safe” in the taglines were viewed particularly negatively. Participants noted that gun owners already take many precautions to be safe and that the ban and the associated buy-back program will do nothing to make Canada safer. They felt that the use of words like this just imply that gun owners are “unsafe” and therefore they will further stigmatize gun owners. Most gun owners, whether they own a prohibited firearm or not, reacted negatively to the idea that the ban and buy-back was going to increase safety in Canada. They feel that the real threats to safety are from other sources such as smuggled and illegally obtained weapons and the black market. Consequently, many felt that associating the ban on assault-style firearms was misleading. Several participants expressed the view the program as a whole is a politically motivated move by the government aimed at falsely reassuring the general public. They felt this was not an appropriate tone if the target audience was specifically owners of prohibited firearms. Some participants went so far as to say that all the taglines made them feel stigmatized and criminalized in the eyes of the general public.

Name/tagline B was seen to be somewhat more acceptable because no one can disagree that “firearm safety matters.” There was also a negative reaction to the use of terms such as “assault-style” and to “amnesty.” It was noted that if this is a program aimed specifically at the people who own the newly prohibited firearms, the name and tagline should avoid trying to “spin” what the program is all about and stick to the facts.

There was some disagreement about whether the program was best described as a “buy-back” or as a “compensation” program. Some resented the use of the term “buy-back” as it implied they had purchased their firearms from the government in the first place and preferred the notion of being compensated for having to surrender their legally obtained firearms taken. But most felt that the name buy-back was now widely used and part of the vernacular. Most also felt that it was important that any name for the program stress that it was about prohibited firearms and not about firearms in general.

For these reasons, the two preferred tagline and name combinations in English were (G.) “Canada’s Prohibited Firearm Buy-back Program: Reducing the Risk” and (B.) Firearm Safety Matters: Prohibited Firearm Buy-back Program.

In French, the preferred tagline and name combinations were (J.) “Loi sur les armes à feu : protection et indemnisation,” as well as (H.) Mission armes à feu prohibées : indemnisation et cession. One participant suggested that using the word “cession” from H. and “indemnisation” from J. would make the name truer to what the program characteristics are while being objective. A few people also mentioned that referring to the law “la loi” was relevant and powerful.

2. Creative concepts

A primary objective of this series of focus groups was to assess the reaction of firearms owners to three different creative concepts aimed at promoting the buy-back program. Participants were initially shown the poster-style executions of the three concepts side-by-side and asked which one was the most memorable and why. Following that initial assessment, each concept was discussed in greater depth after being shown in all formats - as a poster, as a mobile/digital ad, and as a website design.

Initial reactions

The three ad concept posters tested side-by-side were as follows:

As was the case with the program names and taglines, many participants made it clear that they did not like any of the creative concepts because they objected to the program in the first place. That being said, the vast majority were willing to look at the concepts objectively and discuss their relative strengths and weaknesses.

The general consensus was that Concept 3 was the most initially appealing and eye-catching of the three concepts. Participants rated it highly for its white background, its minimalist use of colours such as yellow and orange and its avoidance of sensational images of “scary looking” guns. A number of participants also felt that Concept 2 was the most immediately eye-catching and memorable, though not always in a positive way. It was frequently noted that the realistic image of an AR-15 with a cancel sign over it was very attention-grabbing but as is discussed further below, it often elicited an emotional negative response from firearms owners. Very few participants found Concept 1 to be the most memorable or the most eye catching.

The three ad concepts were then shown in random order to all focus group participants in their respective posters, mobile/digital and website format designs to be discussed in greater detail.

Concept 1

Participants viewed Concept 1 as by far the least effective and the least appealing of the three. As noted above, it was seldom identified as the most eye-catching or memorable concept at first glance. When this concept was explored in greater detail in all its formats, there were several consistent criticisms raised. These included:

· The dark green background was described as bland and unattractive. Several participants felt that this colour was not appropriate to an ad concept designed to promote the buy-back program. They felt the green colour was one they associated more with either the military or with environmental causes.

· The illustration-style imagery at the top of the concept depicting a variety of firearms was unpopular. Many participants felt it trivialized the topic and created a “comic book” look.

· The guns that were depicted were widely seen as being misleading. In every focus group, at least one participant pointed out that some of the guns shown were not part of the new prohibition on assault-style firearms. They noted that some guns depicted, such as the one with a silencer, have always been prohibited in Canada and that other guns were not easily recognized at all. It was also frequently noted that the firearms were all upside down.

· Participants generally liked the way all three creative concepts showed the steps involved in taking part in the buy-back program. However, the vast majority preferred to have these steps symbolized with icons as was done in Concepts 2 and 3. They found the style in Concept 1 of showing the steps simply as words with interconnecting arrows to be less effective.

· The only positive feature that some participants identified in this concept is that it attempts, in a flawed way, to depict the fact that a wide range of firearms have been banned – not just AR-15s. Some felt this was an important point to make since there could be a misconception that only one firearm has been prohibited when in fact there are hundreds of models affected by the ban.

Concept 2

As noted above, Concept 2 was named almost as frequently as Concept 3 as being the most “eye catching” and memorable of the three concepts at first glance. When this concept was explored in greater detail in all its formats, there were several consistent criticisms raised. These included:

· Many participants said this was the concept that would be most likely to make them, and other people stop and take notice in a public space, due to the striking display of an AR-15 and of a cancel sign. They felt that this concept therefore “gets to the point” and leaves no doubt as to what it is about.

· This concept also elicited a strong, visceral negative reaction from many participants, particularly those who own assault-style firearms. They felt the scary and sensational image of an AR-15 contributed to the stigmatization of all firearm owners. It was pointed out several times that the AR-15 is visually the “scariest” of all newly banned guns and is popularly associated with mass shooting events.

· Some participants expressed concerns it gives the impression that the AR-15 is the one and only firearm being prohibited. While it may be true that the AR-15 is the most common and best known of the firearms that are eligible for the buy-back, there are hundreds of other firearms that are also being banned. There were concerns that many owners of banned firearms may see this ad and get a false sense of security that they do not own a gun that is now banned.

· Opinion was very mixed on the use of the cancel sign over the AR-15. Some found this effective as it describes exactly what is being done. Others found the cancel image provocative and part of a vilification of certain firearms and of the people who bought them in good faith when they were legal. It also puts too much emphasis on the prohibition of certain firearms and not enough on the fact that there is a buy-back program as well.

· Many participants evaluated this concept very much through the lens of the impact it would have on non-gun owners. They assumed it would be seen in public places, and that it was more about telling the non-gun owning majority that the Government of Canada was taking action - rather than it being about informing responsible gun owners that this was a program that applied to them.

· Participants were shown two other versions of this concept, where instead of showing a photograph or image of an actual AR-15, it showed just a silhouette of the gun in two different colours. The vast majority of participants felt that if a gun was to be depicted at all it was better to show an actual gun. They felt that the silhouette of the AR-15 looked “cartoonish” or like a billboard for a James Bond film and that this served to trivialize the issue.

· As noted earlier, the idea of showing a series of steps involved in taking part in the program were appreciated. Most participants also liked the use of icons in this concept as well as in Concept Three, but the image of a truck to symbolize “Participate” was puzzling to many of them. They do not imagine sending away their firearms in a vehicle. Some suggested that an image of a handoff between two people might make more sense. Some also felt that the “Collect” step could be better symbolized with a dollar sign as opposed to a cheque in a hand.

· The use of blue as a background colour was acceptable to most participants and was often described as pleasant to look at, though some found it to be a colour not normally associated the federal government. Some also noted that white letters on a blue background can be harder to read than when the typeface is dark.

Concept 3

Most participants felt this was the concept they would be most likely to respond to and that they found the most appealing. It had several positive features:

· The white background was seen to be both eye-catching and also to be more formal and easier to read. Several people note that black type on a white background was easier on their eyes in all formats. Several participants also felt that the use of red or orange is appropriate for a program that is connected to something being banned. The colour scheme in this concept was regarded as the most “governmental” and in line with what people would expect from an ad promoting any Government of Canada program.

· The use of icons with arrows to represent the steps in the process of taking part in the buy-back program were appreciated. They liked the fact that the icons were larger and more conspicuous in this concept than in Concept 2. Once again there was some confusion about the use of the icon of a truck to symbolize “Participate”.

· Most participants appreciated how Concept 3 included and explanatory paragraph below the headline which the other two concepts omitted. They felt that this paragraph was important in providing some context and explanation about the program and helps tell the story.

· Most participants easily recognized the image at the top of the concept as being a part of a semi-automatic firearm. They liked how this would be clearly recognizable to anyone who owned a newly prohibited gun but would not attract negative attention from non-gun owners who would likely not recognize the image. A few participants, none of whom owned any newly prohibited firearms, were concerned that the image in the top was unclear and would have preferred an image of an entire gun.

· Some concerns were also expressed that two other alternate images of parts of guns shown at the top of this concept were not as obvious. One image looked like a part of a traditional hunting rifle, and another did not look like a part of a firearm at all.

· The use of a yellow box around National Firearms Buy-back Program elicited a variety of views. Some found it very eye-catching, and others found that the use of yellow created an image of “cheapness” and made them think of Best Buy of No Frills.

Concluding thoughts on creative concepts in comparison

After having discussed the three concepts in detail, participants were again shown all three side by side and asked if they wanted to reconsider which one they felt they would personally be most likely to respond to. Concept 3 was still preferred by most participants for several reasons. Most felt it was the least stigmatizing to gun owners and that the imagery was easily recognized by the intended audience. The white background was eye catching and the additional paragraph that was not contained in the other concepts was informative.

While many noted that Concept 2 was still the most attention-grabbing, it attracted attention in a more negative way. It was clear what it is about, but it was also often seen to be sending a negative message about guns to the general public. It raised the temperature and created negative emotions among many.

Very few participants changed their minds from their stated preferences at the beginning of the discussion. Some who had initially chosen Concept 2 as being the most memorable concept decided later that Concept 3 was more effective when it came to appealing to them personally and making them want to find out more. This was the result of participants evaluating the concepts less on which one had the most “shock value” and more on which one felt the most inviting to them.

Concept 1 was again rarely preferred on any level. The types of guns depicted were seen to be misleading and colours were too dark.

Appendix A: Quantitative methodology

The quantitative phase of this research consisted of an online survey of 2,001 current owners of firearms, 18 years of age and over. This necessitated the use of screening questions at the start of each online survey to ascertain if the respondent is currently the owner of a firearm of any kind.

Environics sourced the online sample from Delvinia’s AskingCanadians panel, to generate a large sample with representative coverage of all groups of interest. AskingCanadians is an online panel firm with access to more than one million Canadians. Established in 2005, AskingCanadians owns and manages Canada’s premier proprietary research panel —also known as AskingCanadians — and its French counterpart Qu’en pensez-vous, which provides Francophone panel members with a unilingual French interface and unique voice.

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

Normally, when Environics conducts national online surveys of the Canadian general public we set provincial and regional quotas and we also set interlocking age and gender quotas to ensure that the sample is as reflective as possible of the Canadian population. In this case, the survey was only with firearms owners; from past research Environics had reason to believe firearms owners are well distributed across the provinces and regions of Canada, with some possible over-representation in the Prairie provinces and in rural areas. Firearms owners skew heavily male and it was expected there would be underrepresentation of those born outside of Canada and/or those who are racialized. As such, the study did not set firm quotas on any other demographic factors, although Environics attempted to ensure the sample includes a diverse sample of current Canadian firearm owners (gender, geographic location, urban/rural split, types of activities/hobbies of different firearm owners (i.e., hunters, sport shooters, collectors, etc.). The data were not weighted since the exact demographic makeup of the population of firearms owners is unknown.

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

Region	TOTAL
Atlantic	193
Quebec	312
Ontario	798
Man/Sask	222
Alberta	270
B.C.	206
TOTAL	2,001

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 D.

Fieldwork

Fieldwork was conducted from February 16-March 3, 2022. The median interview length was 15 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).

Completion results

The completion results are presented in the following table.

Contact disposition

Disposition	Total sample
Total invitations(c)	178,760
Total completes (d)	2,001
Qualified break-offs (e)	2,032
Disqualified (f)	13,198
Not responded (g)	160,520
Quota filled (h)	1,009
Contact rate = (d+e+f+h)/c	10.20%
Participation rate = (d+f+h)/c	9.07%

Respondent profile

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

Total interviewed	Total sample %
Age
18-29	13%
30-44	55%
45-59	16%
60+	16%
Gender
Female	29%
Male	70%
Gender diverse	1%
Education
High school or less	16%
College/tech/some university	27%
University	56%
Household income
Under $40,000	12%
$40,000-<$80,000	23%
$80,000-<$100,000	18%
$100,000-<$150,000	23%
$150,000 or more	20%
Language of survey
English	88%
French	12%
Community type
Urban area	63%
Suburban area	20%
Small town/rural/remote area	17%
Birthplace
Canada	93%
Other	7%

Appendix B: Qualitative methodology

The qualitative focus group phase of this study consisted of a series of online focus groups to test reactions and gain feedback on three separate ad concepts and proposed taglines for the upcoming “Buy-Back Program” for Public Safety Canada. The concepts were intended to communicate details on the upcoming program, including how to participate and what firearms would be included. The discussions in each group were composed of participants’ thoughts on each ad concept in poster form, mobile digital ad form, and website form, elaborating on what specifically was liked and/or disliked about the concepts’ overall design (i.e., the fonts and colours utilized), the amount of information about the buy-back program shown in each concept, and the use of imagery of specific firearms. Comments and concerns were also recorded on the various proposed taglines for the buy-back program, and ranked by popularity following the conclusion of the focus group meetings.

1. Group composition

Environics Research conducted a series of 12 online focus groups in late February and in early March 2022 for Public Safety Canada to assess reactions to three digital ad concepts that were shown in animatic form. One-to-two sessions were conducted with gun owners from each of the following regions: Ontario (February 28 & March 1), Atlantic Canada (March 2 & 3), Quebec (both on March 8 and conducted in French), British Columbia (February 28 & March 1), and Manitoba/Saskatchewan (March 2), Alberta (March 3), Nunavut (March 7), and Yukon/NWT (March 7). The groups were conducted using the Zoom platform and were composed of Canadians who own firearms. Each session consisted of 6 to 8 participants.

The primary objective was to explore the reactions of firearms owners to creative concepts and potential names and taglines designed to promote the proposed ‘Buy-back Program’ for newly prohibited firearms. A secondary objective was to explore attitudes towards the prohibition of assault-style firearms and the planned buy-back program.

The following topics were explored in each focus group:

· Current firearm ownership and usage

· Awareness of new prohibition and buy-back

· Reaction to proposed program names and taglines

· Reaction to the three digital creative concepts

· Attitudes towards the prohibition and the buy-back program

· Final comments

Environics recruited participants via a combination of industry-standard methods to ensure participation in all the sessions across all provinces. Participants were offered a $125 incentive to thank them for their time. Environics invited eight (8) participants to each session. The sessions were hosted using the Zoom conferencing platform.

The sessions were distributed as follows:

Dates	Participant Locations and Times
Mon., Feb. 28, 2022	5pm EST – Group #1 (Ontario) 7:30pm EST (4:30pm PST) – Group #2 (BC)
Tues., March 1	5pm EST – Group #3 (Ontario) 7:30pm EST (4:30pm PST) – Group #4 (BC)
Wed., March 2	4pm EST (5pm AST) – Group #5 (Atlantic) 6:30pm EST (5:30pm CST) – Group #6 (Manitoba/Saskatchewan)
Thurs. March 3	4pm EST (5pm AST) – Group #7 (Atlantic) 6:30pm EST (4:30pm MST) – Group #8 (Alberta)
Mon, March 7	5pm EST – Group #9 (Nunavut/NWT) 7:30pm EST (4:30pm PST) – Group #10 (Yukon/NWT)
Tues, March 8	5pm EST – Group #11 (Quebec) 7:30pm EST – Group #12 (Quebec)

NB: Groups 11 and 12 were conducted in French. All other focus groups were conducted in 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 of firearm owners a chance to participate, and its results are not intended to be statistically representative of target population of owners of firearms, 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 $125 honorarium to encourage participation and thank them for their commitment.

Environics subcontracted Trend Research to recruit the focus group participants. In total, there were 96 participants invited to take part in the 12 focus groups, 89 of whom participated.

3. Moderation and conduct

Derek Leebosh, Vice President – Public Affairs at Environics Research, moderated all ten English-language sessions. France Mercier moderated the two French sessions. Each focus group session lasted between 90 and 120 minutes 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: Quantitative questionnaire

Environics Research

January 27, 2022

Public Safety Canada

Firearms Owners Survey

PN11345

Final Questionnaire

N = 2,000 CURRENT OWNERS OF FIREARMS

LANDING PAGE

Please select your preferred language for completing the survey / SVP choisissez votre langue préférée pour remplir le sondage

01- English / Anglais

02- Français / French

The information collected through the research is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act, legislation of the Government of Canada, and to the provisions of relevant provincial privacy legislation. Programming note: link is to https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/

Introduction

Environics Research, an independent research company, is conducting this survey on behalf of Public Safety Canada, which is a department of the Government of Canada.

Your participation is voluntary, and your answers will remain anonymous. The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete.

The survey is best completed on a computer or a tablet. If you are completing this survey on a smart phone, please turn the device to landscape (horizontal/sideways) mode so that all questions display correctly.

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Environics Research at publicsafetysurvey@environics.ca.

Please click on >> to continue.

Section 1: Screening and initial demographics

A. Do you own a firearm of any kind (i.e., handgun, hunting rifle, long gun etc.)?

01 – Yes, I own a firearm CONTINUE

02 – No, I do not own a firearm THANKS AND TERMINATE

B. What is your province of residence?

PROVINCE DROP DOWN LIST

C. To ensure we include people from all parts of Canada, what are the first three characters of your postal code?

FSA OPEN END

D. 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

04 – An Indigenous community

E. In what year were you born?

MUMERIC DROP DOWN (<1920 TO >2002)

F. What is your gender?

01 – Male

02 – Female

03 – Gender diverse

99 – Prefer not to answer

Section 2: General firearms ownership

This survey will explore issues around firearms in Canada. Please be assured that your responses will be strictly confidential and will not be linked to you in any way.

ASK ALL WHO DO NOT CURRENTLY OWN A FIREARM:

1. How many firearms do you currently own?

01 – One

02 – Two

03 – Three

04 – Four

05 – Five

06 – More than five

99 – Don’t know

2. Which of the following types of firearms do you own? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

01 – Rifle

02 – Shotgun

03 – Semi-automatic long gun

04 – Handgun

98 – Other (SPECIFY)

99 – Don’t know

3. How long have you owned any firearms? Has it been…?

01 – Less than a year

02 – One to two years

03 – Two to five years

04 – More than five years

99 – Don’t know

4. How have you obtained your firearm(s)? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

01 – Purchased from a retailer

02 – Purchased from an individual

03 - Inherited from a family member or friend

04 – Received as a gift

05 - Other (SPECIFY)____________________

99 – Don’t know

5. On average, how often do you use your firearms?

01 – Once a week or more

02 – 1 or 2 times a month

03 – A few times a year

04 – Once a year or less

05 – Never

99 – Don’t know

6. Do you currently have a valid PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) number? (NB: Please be assured once again that your answer will remain anonymous and will never be traced back to you) CHECK ONE

01 – Yes, my PAL number is valid and up to date

02 – Yes, I have a valid PAL number, but some of my information is out of date

03 – No, I had a PAL number in the past, but it has expired

04 – No, I have never had a PAL number

98 – Prefer not to say

99 – Don’t know

7. Do you have a valid RPAL (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License) number? (NB: Please be assured once again that your answer will remain anonymous and will never be traced back to you). CHECK ONE

01 – Yes, I have a valid and up to date RPAL

02 – Yes, I have a valid RPAL number, but some of my information is out of date

03 – No, I had a RPAL number in the past, but it has expired

04 – No, I have never had a RPAL number and have no need for one

98 – Prefer not to say

99 – Don’t know

From 2020 survey Q3 - modified

8. People own firearms for many different reasons. Which of the following are the main reasons you own a firearm? RANDOMIZE…CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

01 – Hunting for sport

02 – Hunting as part of Indigenous tradition or treaty right

03 - Hunting for food

04 - Target shooting for sport (recreational or competitive)

05 - I’m a firearms collector

06 - Safety/protection/self-defence

07 - Gifted through inheritance

08 – Work-related (military or police service, animal control, etc.)

98 – Other reason (SPECIFY)____________________

99 – Prefer not to say

9. When you use your firearms, is it mostly something you do alone as a solo activity, with others as a social activity, or is it both equally?

01 – Mostly solo

02 – Mostly social

03 – Both solo and social equally

04 – Don’t use my firearms at all

From 2020 survey Q23 - modified

10. What are your two main sources of news and information on firearms? RANDOMIZE ORDER…DRAG AND DROP MAIN SOURCE, 2^ND BIGGEST SOURCE

01 – Government websites (e.g., RCMP, Public Safety Canada)

02 - Blogs for gun owners

03 – Social media (e.g., Facebook groups, Twitter etc.)

04 – Firearms in-store sales outlets

05 – Online firearms sales outlets

06 – Firearms trade shows

07 - TV/radio

08 - Podcasts

09 - Family/friends/word of mouth

10 - Newspaper/magazines

11 – Online forums (e.g., Reddit, Quora etc.)

12 – Firearms advocacy groups

98 - Other (SPECIFY)_________________

99 – Don’t know

11. What social media platforms do you use the most? RANDOMIZE…CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

01 – Facebook

02 – Instagram

03 – Twitter

04 – TikTok

05 – YouTube

06 – Reddit

07 – LinkedIn

08 - Snapchat

98 – Other (SPECIFY)_________________

99 – I don’t use social media

12. How would you most like to hear from the federal government when it comes to firearm regulations and programs? Would it be from…? RANDOMIZE…CHECK ONE

01 – Government websites

02 – Official announcements

03 – Media coverage

04 - Social media

05 – Mail-outs/newsletters (hard copy)

06 – E-mail list

07 – Advertising

98 – Other (SPECIFY)______________

99 – Don’t know

Section 3: Awareness of regulations

From 2020 Q5 survey – slightly modified

13. There are a variety of regulations around the ownership, licensing, transporting, storage and safe use of firearms in Canada. How familiar are you with these firearms regulations?

01 – Very familiar

02 – Somewhat familiar

03 – Not very familiar

04 – Not at all familiar

From 2020 Q6 survey – slightly modified

14. Would you say that the regulation of firearms (i.e., banning categories of firearms, licence verification, etc.) in Canada is too strict, not strict enough or strikes the right balance?

01 – Too strict

02 – Strikes the right balance

03 – Not strict enough

99 – Don’t know

From 2020 Q10 survey - modified

15. 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? Randomize. Carousel.

a. Rifles and shotguns, that are manual action (e.g., pump, break)

b. Rifles and shotguns, that are semi-automatic action

c. Revolvers

d. Semi-automatic handguns

e. Replica firearms (e.g., airsoft, pellet, BB)

01 - Illegal in all cases

02 - Illegal in most cases

03 - Legal in most cases

04 – Legal in all cases

99 – Don’t know

From 2020 survey Q9 – modified

16. How would you rate the performance of the Government of Canada when it comes to introducing measures (i.e., regulations, policies, programs, etc.) to address gun-related violence?

01 – Excellent

02 – Good

03 – Fair

04 – Poor

99 – Don’t know

From 2020 survey Q17 – modified

17. The federal government has been working on policies to address firearms related violence. To what extent have you heard about each of these policies? Have you…? Randomize. Carousel.

a. Banning “assault-style” firearms

b. A “buy-back” program whereby the government will provide compensation for the collection of certain banned firearms

c. Cracking down on “straw purchasing” (when a firearm license-holder legally buys a firearm and the illegally resells it on the black market)

d. Supporting provinces/territories that take action to prohibit handguns

e. Action against gun and gang violence (i.e., gang prevention programs, investments and funding, etc.)

f. Expanding background checks to include a review of a firearms license applicant’s entire life history

g. New measures and funding to tackle gun smuggling and trafficking.

h. Banning the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than the legal number of bullets

i. Requiring businesses to maintain inventory and sales records of non-restricted firearms for tracing purposes

j. Requiring a seller of non-restricted firearms to validate a buyer’s licence with the government

k. Requiring an “Authorization to Transport” restricted or prohibited firearms to any location other than a range or home after a purchase.

01- Heard a lot about this

02 – Heard a bit about this

03- Had not heard about this at all

From 2020 survey Q18 – modified

18. To what extent would you support or oppose each of these measures to address firearms related violence in Canada? Randomize. Carousel.