Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


AssaultWeapons.jpg
A large majority of Washington voters support an assault weapons ban, according to a new poll. Gun rights advocates say a poll of attitudes is of little value. (AP file photo)

Survey: Washington residents support assault weapons ban

January 22, 2013 @ 4:43 pm (Updated: 5:43 am - 1/23/13 )

Most Washington residents support stronger background checks for gun purchasers and banning assault weapons, according to a new statewide poll.

Washington Ceasefire, a grass-roots organization working to end gun violence, commissioned the poll which was conducted by a consulting group that represents both Republicans and Democrats.

Overall, the poll found 76 percent of state residents support tighter gun laws.

About 87 percent of Washington residents want better background checks of gun buyers. That means requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, even from private dealers at gun shows.

When it comes to assault weapons, 66 percent support a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Washington Ceasefire's Ralph Fascitelli says the poll suggests voters are "far ahead of state elected officials who have passed only one gun reform so far in this century, and seems to be struggling to reach a consensus in the current session, even in the wake of Sandy Hook and other recent mass shooting incidents such as Cafe Racer."

Gun rights activists say there is little value in a poll of attitudes.

"Remember, these are the guys who had the poll back in 1997 that said they were going to win Initiative 676, and they lost nearly 3 to 1," says Dave Workman, communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a former member of the NRA Board of Directors.

Initiative 676, would have required that trigger locks to be sold with handguns, along with requiring handgun owners to take an eight-hour safety training course.

"The firearms community isn't opposed to background checks," Workman tells me, "but they must be immediate, and they can't involve the creation of a de facto gun owner registry."

The poll consisted of 600 phone interviews, and has an error margin of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

It also found "widespread confusion" about what gun laws we have in place at present.

For example, over 40 percent of voters and gun owners alike believe Washington already bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips. More than 70 percent believe every gun purchase requires a background check.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (130)


  • Add A Comment

  • Paul Kersey wrote...
    "Washington Ceasefire commissioned the poll"
    January 22, 2013 5:32 pm
    No need to read further.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    This whole thing is just a smokescreen for gun registry so they can come our guns -
    January 22, 2013 5:40 pm
    YUUUP!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    ugh.
    January 23, 2013 7:00 am
    see, it's comments like that that make the gun rights people sound NUTS.

    tone it down, sonny. nobody's coming for your bang bangs.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Oly80
    January 23, 2013 7:45 am
    CH is being sarcastic and taunting the pro-gun crowd, who fully realize that proposed legislation is only a beginning of a long range scenario that with the end result being confiscation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    good job WA !!!!
    January 22, 2013 5:44 pm
    The sooner we get rid of assault weapons the better!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    Really?
    January 22, 2013 5:57 pm
    First, 600 people... really? The 2012 populaton estimate of WA state is 6,897,012 so they sampled .000087% of the state and came up with this study?

    Second, The group may do studies for republicans and democrats but that doesn't mean they're unbiased... it just means they're willing to perform service for anybody who'll pay for it... much like a prostitue I might add.

    Lastly, I really don't think the majority of the state wants to ban semi-automatic weapons considering they outsell revolvers dramatically.

    All that said, as liberal as this state is I find it entirely believalbe that the government will try to pass some asinine law like NY did to make the public "feel good". I doubt we're any smarter here than they are and the majority of us may well by into it hoping to appease the collective conscious.[p] I do hope, however, than saner minds will prevail.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Survey methodology
    January 23, 2013 1:23 am
    A survey of 600, assuming it's done scientifically, may be representative of the state. Most statewide polls done during the election were based on 500 people. Most national surveys are based on interviews with between 1,000 and 3,000...I've seen some as low as 800.

    Public opinion researchers liken it to making a big pot of soup — to taste-test the soup, you don't have to eat the whole pot, or even a whole bowl's worth. You only have to try a bite. The same is true of public opinion.

    I'm not commenting on the opinions/results from the survey (or any really, I'm not a survey fan) only cautioning that the sample size isn't a red flag.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Linda
    January 23, 2013 4:44 am
    I would like to see how the questions were asked in the Poll. As with other polls you can sway the answers by the way you ask the question.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Rick
    January 23, 2013 6:08 am
    I agree. I've seen the full survey results, not the questions posed. I'll get that today and post.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lee76 wrote...
    Getting the survey results and..
    January 23, 2013 9:59 am
    Linda, I posted a rather long comment below. When you are getting the survey results, ask them for the design template of the poll including the questions asked, the questions that were going to be posed, as well as the poll design verification and how many analysts participated in the design and review as well as their qualifications for designing the poll. Are they analysts, what is their training, what is their experience. If you come back and say that you have reviewed the qualifications and the questions and believe they are representative, I would tend to be less suspicious. What will the My Northwest, KIRO or other sister major media outlet analysts say when they look at the entire package? I tend to trust a large media organization conducting polling where small for profit/politically leaning organizations cannot reasonably conduct an unbiased poll with the small percentage of the population as polled. Did they use the "polling" stations in some of the malls around the State? did they go to small towns or County Seats. At least a large media outlet hires analysts and do a pretty fair job of getting a broad scope poll across the population.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @News Chick
    January 23, 2013 7:52 am
    To abuse your soup analogy a bit further, one would need a few more spoonfuls of said soup to get a fair assessment. My beef here is with the haphazard baby spoon, that, like most political polls, serve as nothing but press fodder and blog speculation bait. I'd be willing to bet that the electorate, like they usually do, would reveal a different result.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Cig-in-a-Poke
    January 22, 2013 6:35 pm
    Hey, if you're getting rid of any old "assault weapons" laying around the house, I can offer you a very reasonable rate. And no, I won't sell them down at Puyallup, where news of this study will drive the prices up another 20%.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hietalas wrote...
    Please define "Assault Weapons"??
    January 22, 2013 8:03 pm
    every tangible item can and has been used to commit assault, so I would be curious as to your definition of an assault weapon... Do we ban the fork for causing obesity? Do we ban cars because some chose to drink and drive and kill someone? Do we ban the hammer that has caused many deaths?, Do we ban kitchen knives as people have been known to kill with those as well?? How about you realize that CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS??? To ban a rifle simply because of its color is the same discrimination this country used on people.... a color does not make something any more dangerous.... Mental Health NEEDS to be looked at as a MAIN Factor of mass killings. The only difference between a 10 round mag and a 30 round mag is about 1.5 seconds... The best defense against a "bad guy" with a gun IS a good guy with a gun.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • blackrings70 wrote...
    It would do nothing....
    January 22, 2013 9:25 pm
    And you really think criminals are going to give a crap about any assault weapons ban.......wow.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sailmaker wrote...
    Assault weapons
    January 23, 2013 12:11 am
    Maybe you can tell us what an "assault weapon" really is. After all they did not exist until the 1980's when the Lame Stream Media decided that this would be a good way to take away the LEGALLY owned guns in the country.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    yet my father has two...
    January 23, 2013 7:14 am
    here's the definition for an assault rifle: as·sault ri·fle Noun A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

    last i checked, 'infantry use' alludes to military service.

    but no, please, tell us how it's our duty to have guns like these to stand up against our government. it'll be a good laugh. even though i've heard it on fox news a million times, it never gets old!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Oly80
    January 23, 2013 8:03 am
    Was your definition taken from the constitution or any sort of rulings passed down from the supreme court? What it "alludes to" is irrelevant. That being said, everyone knows that going toe-to-toe with a well equipped government would be messy, on both sides. Fortunately, the standing army is manned by our brothers and sisters who be far less willing to attack and kill their armed countrymen than they would be to peacefully march them out the door.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • retiredscout2008 wrote...
    There you go
    January 23, 2013 10:24 am
    By your own definition an assault rifle is an "automatic" rifle not semi-automatic. If I am not mistaken "automatic" weapons already are against the law in Washington. I read something the other day that was chilling and reinforces my belief that the most dangerous place in the United States is a gun free zone.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • imanegro wrote...
    Next thing to ban
    January 23, 2013 5:42 am
    Cigars.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • MarTac wrote...
    Good Job WA !!!!
    January 23, 2013 12:26 pm
    We can't get rid of something we dont have!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Since rights are not transitory...
    January 22, 2013 5:49 pm
    Try bundling gun control with election control...after all, rights are only what we say they are, so voting rights are not etched in stone either...who cares if the liberals claim is the poor are too stupid to get ID's...they have no solid rights anyway...so the democrat attitude is screw the poor...if we can get a large enough number of folks calling for it your voter rights can be infringed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    darn typos!
    January 22, 2013 5:49 pm
    Since rights are NOW transitory...curse this board for not having an edit feature!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    Really???
    January 22, 2013 5:54 pm
    First, 600 people... really? first of all, the 2012 populaton estimate of WA state is 6,897,012 so they sampled .000087% of the state and came up with this study?[p] Second, The group may do studies for republicans and democrats but that doesn't mean they're unbiased... it just means they're willing to perform service for anybody who'll pay for it... much like a prostitue I might add.[P] Lastly, I really don't think the majority of the state wants to ban semi0automatic weapons considering they outsell revolvers dramatically.[p] All that said, as liberal as this state is I find it entirely believalbe that the government will try to pass some asinine law like NY did to make the public "feel good". I doubt we're any smarter here than they are and the majority of us may well by into it hoping to appease the collective conscious.[p] I do hope, however, than saner minds will prevail.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • blpman wrote...
    I agree.
    January 22, 2013 7:24 pm
    These polls don't represent the State of Washington. I can't even believe we are debating this.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    Hey A J
    January 22, 2013 6:04 pm
    You have to like a woman who won't take your crap!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • anmawa2005 wrote...
    I AM CALLING BS ON THIS ONE
    January 22, 2013 6:10 pm
    no body ask me if i support or not this issue, there for it is pure bs from the left, that together with our fearless leader Obama want to take our guns away, one rifle at the time, then one pistol at the time, well come and get them...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    I suspected this....
    January 22, 2013 6:27 pm
    ...too horrible to be true, until I got to the 600 number. Then I knew it. Although this state has a debilitating (D) problem, it's strangely 180 degrees the other way on the gun issue. Hell, we're almost like Texas in that regard. Mr. Fascitelli claims that Washington law makers are behind the times, but it seems more like his almost-anecdotal evidence is giving him false hope.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • doublej wrote...
    Kind of feel better knowing that,
    January 22, 2013 6:56 pm
    We are one of the few states smart enough and forward thinking enough to have the right of an individual to keep and bare arms written into it's state constitution.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    A long sleeved T shirt would cover those bare arms.
    January 23, 2013 10:52 am
    .
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • southi5 wrote...
    W Lawn
    January 23, 2013 1:14 pm
    I like what you did there.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • blpman wrote...
    This Whole Anti-Gun Movement Worries Me
    January 22, 2013 7:17 pm
    Linda, I am a safe and responsible gun owner who enjoys hunting and target shooting, but why do I feel like I am being punished for the Crimes of others. If we truly are going to be anti-gun nation. Why does the government need these type of weapons. Are law enforcement and military personnel completely above reproach. Is the government going to guarantee the safety of my family and house hold. Why are we not covering the could storied of men and women who have been able to defend their families because of our right to bear the same arms the criminals already have. I like listening every morning to your news show, but lately I stopped listening, because I feel that the stories are very one sided. Please try to be more support of other views on this matter even though you may not agree. Thanks Loyal Listener.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }