Is there common ground for supporters of gun rights and gun control to stop random, senseless shootings in this country? Perhaps. Hours after the awful shooting at Seattle Pacific University, Mayor Ed Murray appeared on campus and said, “Once again the epidemic of gun violence has come to Seattle — the epidemic of gun violence that is haunting this nation.” Other politicians, activists and liberal clergy echoed his words. It will surprise the mayor and many other people to learn that gun violence isn’t rising in America, it’s falling. In fact, it’s plummeting. Gun deaths are down nearly 40 percent in the last 20 years, despite an increase in population and a rise in gun ownership. The Bureau of Justice Statistics points out an even more dramatic number: Non-fatal gun crimes free-fell 69 percent during that same period. But mass shootings have increased. Depending on how you define them (attempted vs. actual), they have doubled or tripled in the last decade. Why are random shootings with multiple casualties up while overall “gun violence” is way down? Let’s broaden our focus. Read The Full...

Commentary: The public isn’t excited about his opponent. But McGinn has a bigger problem than Ed Murray.   By John Carlson October 22, 2013. Here is something you don’t often see in American politics. An incumbent politician with views largely matching his constituents is seeking re-election. Unemployment is low — in fact it’s two points lower than the state average, and two-and-a-half points below the national rate. The city’s fiscal condition is stronger than the day he took office, and his administration has been free of any substantial scandal. On paper he should be cruising to re-election. Instead, Mike McGinn will be lucky to reach 40 percent of the vote. Last month, Survey USA released a poll showing state Sen. Ed Murray leading Mayor Mike McGinn by more than 20 points, 52-to-30. After a month of furious, energetic campaigning by McGinn, topped by two impressive debate performances, another poll last week showed nearly identical results: 52-to-32 percent. With Election Day about two weeks out, less than a third of the electorate is committed to the mayor’s re-election. A smaller sample by KIRO-TV in early October showed McGinn closer to Murray but with only 29 percent of the electorate committed to him. The Strategies 360 PR firm independently conducted a similar poll in mid-October showing McGinn with 34 percent support. Politicians with re-elect numbers this low are usually under federal indictment. Someone find a bugle and start playing “Taps.” It’s not like opponent Ed Murray is lighting the world on fire. “Murray-mania” is not sweeping the city. Why would it? The state senator’s views are only marginally different than McGinn’s. He’s not flashy, never has been. TV is not his friend. He is articulate but not eloquent. He is a solid but plodding legislator — a classic workhorse rather than a showhorse, who deserves a place in state history for guiding into passage not one but three landmark civil rights laws expanding liberty for gay citizens. But much of Murray’s appeal seems to come from not being Mike McGinn. And you can’t fault McGinn’s campaign team. They are doing the best they can with what they’ve got. So, if it ain’t the economy, if the city isn’t cratering fiscally or drowning in scandal, what is it? McGinn’s supporters blame “smears” from jealous, nettled, city council members or business groups. But even if it were true, why are the smears sticking? After all, the mayor has both a clear record to run on and the bully pulpit of his office to generate media coverage and rally supporters. He’s plenty capable of defending himself, with a competent campaign team and some influential backers. So why is he losing so badly? Because...

Everything I initially wrote about the Trayvon Martin killing was based on network news reports. And it was almost entirely wrong. In my KOMO radio commentary of March 23, 2012, I said the following about the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman: “Thinking of 17-year old Trayvon the way we’d think of our own kids is exactly how to view this tragedy. Read the full article at Crosscut.com by clicking...

Relieve drunken drivers of their cars. The state should take cars away from defiant drunken drivers before they kill, writes guest columnist John Carlson. ON a sunny spring day in 1971 my dad and I were waiting at a red light in West Seattle when we heard a a loud, screeching sound. I turned to ask, “What’s that?” when I heard a bang and was hurled toward the dashboard. Click here to read the full article in The Seattle...