This post is a blatant violation of Rule #1, but what the heck. It's Monday.

A Globe 'analysis' shows that at least 40 people arrested carrying a gun last year in Boston could be impacted by a proposed law that would keep them from getting drivers licenses. Or at least that's one way to put it. The writers put it another way.

Of the 119 gun offenders convicted in Suffolk County last year whose records were reviewed, 79 have already had their driver's licenses revoked or suspended for other reasons, for offenses from selling drugs near schools to repeatedly failing to appear in court on traffic violations.

Many of those 79 have a long history of motor vehicle infractions. And 18 others are not licensed in Massachusetts for other reasons. Just 22 of the 119 have active licenses, according to the analysis.

Half full, or half empty? And why is the Globe coming out against doing something, even to a limited degree, to impact gun violence? This seems a strange subject for a critical page one expose.

Oh, and on that 'analysis' that forms the basis for the expose, you'll find this, buried much further down in the story.

The Globe analysis, which sampled a quarter of those convicted last year, was not scientific. But the findings are consistent with what law enforcement specialists said they would expect to find.

What does that second sentence mean, anyway? It sounds to me like a circular argument made in support of a story that has no point. Very disappointing work. This would have been more appropriate on the op-ed page.

(Disclosure, see About)