ST is advertising for -594 again, with "New poll: Opposing gun measures both have majority support

[GunnyG]

Maybe we can do some education, in the comments section of this story:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...have-majority-support/#comments-page-subtitle

"Posted by Brian M. Rosenthal
Washington state voters support both expanding background checks for gun sales and restricting background checks for gun sales, according to an Elway Poll released Tuesday.

The poll, the first public survey of voters to gauge support for the initiatives simultaneously, shows the pro-background check Initiative 594 is starting the campaign in better shape. But the anti-background check measure Initiative 591 also has support.

The measures will be on the November ballot.

I-594 would require background checks for all gun transfers, including between private citizens. I-591 would keep the current system of requiring the checks only for sales from licensed firearm dealers (it also calls for prohibiting the government from confiscating guns without due process).

Should the dueling initiatives pass, the issue would probably go to the state Supreme Court.

Depending on how the questions were asked, or how much information was included, the results varied slightly. Here's a breakdown:

• Asked about the initiatives, 72 percent of voters said they would support I-594, while 55 percent said they would support I-591 and 40 percent said they would support both.
• Asked generally about background checks in a follow-up question, 62 percent of voters said they wanted more extensive background checks, 32 percent said they wanted to keep the current system and 6 percent expressed no opinion (an Elway Poll last March found 79 percent of voters supported expanded background checks).
• Asked generally about gun restrictions, 50 percent of voters said protecting gun rights was more important than controlling gun ownership and 40 percent said the reverse (last year's Elway Poll found a 55-37 split in favor of gun rights).

Republicans were more inclined to support I-591 (72 percent) than I-594 (68 percent). Democrats were more inclined to support I-594 (87 percent) than I-591 (46 percent).

And among gun owners (35 percent of the sample), 71 percent said they intended to vote for I-594 compared to 57 percent for I-591.

The telephone poll of roughly 500 voters, conducted April 9-13, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent)."

Read More

 

[BigStick]

Those numbers don't seem to make sense to me. Why would you vote for both of them? And I have a hard time believing that 71 percent of gun owners will vote for I-594. I always feel like I need to see the actual questions and methodology before I will believe any poll.

The article did seem to do a decent job of representing both initiatives (for a short one sentane blurb). Obviously there is more in depth factors to go with requireing UBCs, but that was not the point of this article.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Wait 'till the Spinmeisters get done with the wording of choice on the ballot. Then you'll see how someone might vote for both.
Campaign ads will need to provide clarification, or it will indeed end up before the state SC.

 

[Caveman Jim]

What part of convict the criminals instead of the law abiding gun owners don't people get???
What laws are the criminals going to obey??? NONE!!!

 

[quiet one]

I am still at shall not be infringed so I think that anyone who is an elected official who try's to bring legislation to infringe on this right should automatically be kicked out of office for failure to protect the constitution for which he/she pledged to protect. I also think that the legislator should be made to pay back to the people his/her salary and anything else they have received from being in office. It is time to stop playing with these people and get them out of office.