Twin Cities’ Mayors Join Efforts to Repeal Gun Law

Exactly And well and succinctly put.  Thanks

Yes! dlyn has it exactly right — get the facts.

And, in a limited way, Messrs. Aynti and Peterson did.  The weak mayor of Minneapolis issued a press release; here’s what it said.
Okay; that’s a fact. It’s kind of high school journalism, but that’s okay, I guess. 

Who?  RT Rybak, mayor of Minneapolis.  (That he’s a weak mayor — term technically used — was omitted, but that’s okay; we’re talking high school journalism, here.)

What?  A press release, calling for a portion of a bill to be removed (which oversimplifies the whole thing, but that’s okay).  Key quotes from Rybak’s PR. Check.

When?  Last week.  Check.

Where?  Well, kinda vague.  Did he just send out a PR?  Call a press conference?  If so, with whom?  Where?  Let’s be generous and check it off.

For college-level journalism, let’s go to Why?  The only thing on that we have are the quotes from Rybak, a response from some member of the GoA, and from a health professional (I think Judy’s a nurse, although she does bill herself as a “health professional” in other contexts; the previous head honchette of the CSM had an MD) with a part-time gig as a lobbyist for an astroturf antigun group.

Huh?  What does the Tiahrt amendment really do?  And why are some people so strongly in favor of it?  Is it some payoff to the NRA, a politically powerful grassroots organization?  Why would they not want gun trace data released?  Is there some history there?  What mayor started this campaign, and what frustrations, if any, led him to try to get trace data? 

There are, in fact, answers — many of them — to all of those questions.  Some of them can be answered, as suggested, by looking at the bill itself — it’s not exactly hidden.  Others by a process of gathering information, evaluating it, organizing it, and writing a concise but detailed account . . .

Call it “reporting.”

I dunno. Why do you have time to engage in such scolding, yourself.  Life is, in many ways, a mystery.

As to this being a “fine piece,” well, no; it isn’t — Mr. Peterson and Mr. Aynte are, New Journalistic Fellows, and surely should be able to do better than Journalism 101, and not fall short of it.

They did so Granted that two major papers ignored this seemingly important story, I salute Mr. Peterson and Mr. Aynte for taking the time to cover it.

Each to his or her own… … my own take is that if the local papers treated yet another PR from Rybak as being news, they’d be doing a worse job than they already are.

authorities Actually, I thought the article was better than most on this subject have been.  A few quibbles perhaps, but better than most.  However, the article –and this discussion of Mr. Rosenberg–are illustrations of what journalism has become.  “He Said, She Said”  with competing “authorities”.  There is an actual written bill with actual legal meaning which can be examined and analyzed  and measured against all the claims, to determine the Truth.  This has been studiously avoided by most of the press. 
I generally avoid using titles and affiliations in the silly belief  Truth stands on its own, and Falsehood cannot be propped up by Certificates or Polls.  Those are too easily manipulated.  “Over 200 mayors” sounds impressive.  But if you reported it as a percentage of the Mayors in America it would sound trivial.. I wonder how many Mayors are NRA members ?  More than 200 I bet. 

Somebody has a lot of free time Mr. Rosenberg,

If you are, as you imply, a busy man with plenty of gun and others under his belt, then why do you seem to have so much time scoulding the writers of this fine piece over nuances?

What is it with the media?! Horse – You got it right!  Virtually every article I have read (and every sound bite I have heard) on the Tiahrt Amendment states that it…limits access to gun trace data…  But, not one piece that I have seen from the mainstream media has stated the whole truth – namely that the access is limited TO proper law enforcement agencies conducting bona fide criminal investigations.  The data is off limits to lawyers and any non-law enforcement entities.

I also noticed that the mainstream media has been consistent in reporting that the NRA supports the amendment, but rarely (if ever) reports that the FOP and the BATFE itself support the amendment as well.

What happened to ethical and unbiased journalism?

Uuuh, On the Other Hand We all know that criminals are eager to obtain their weapons from legitimate sources, of course.  So knowing who bought the gun would be SO helpful in tracking down criminals.  Any one interested in buying a bridge?

The problem with the mayors’ position is that it is deceitful.

Their position has nothing at all to do with crime — the police have access to this info in case of a crime. The thing that started this whole effort was New York’s Blumberg wanting to mine the data for lawsuits to bankrupt anyone linked to guns.

It’s pretty widely known that his end game is to get rid of the second amendment, so that like other world states our people in power need not fear armed rebellion.

It has to do with the hope of suing somebody who is accessible and has resources about actions over which they have no control.

Might as well sue auto manufacturers every time some drunk runs somebody down — which I suspect would happen if some litigators thought they could get away with it, for 30% of the take.

Bad idea, unless, for instance, one wants one’s alcohol purchases info to  be eventually maintained and accessible to anyone who wants to extort him/her — that’s the sort of thing this is.

Yup. Orthogonally, I’ve had a couple of conversations with Isaac Peterson, one about this story.  I can understand why he won’t use my preferred designation for myself — “just a guy” (I know that doesn’t pigeonhole easily, but, hey, I don’t want to be easily pigeonholed) — but would rather use a different attribution, having settled, in two stories now, on

Joel Rosenberg, a member of Gun Owners of America.

I’m uncomfortable with that, so I’ve decided to resign from the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and the JPFO.  Which will leave me as a member — once I renew an old membership — of two, and only two organizations:  the Automobile Association of America and the National Organization for Women.

I can see it now:

“Let’s face it:  the reason that these mayors want to try to reduce law abiding citizens’ access to handguns is that they really don’t give a damn when women are rape victims,” said Joel Rosenberg, a member of the National Organization for Women and the AAA.

Mr. Rosenberg, I am sorry you don’t like being identified as being a member of a group you have actually belonged to. When I spoke with you I informed you that I was NOT going to refer to you as “just a guy.” If you objected so strongly you had the option of declining to comment.

As I’ve explained to you more than once, “just a guy” does not provide any explanation about why your views appear in gun-related stories. As I’ve also explained, “just guys” don’t write books about guns, nor do “just guys” testify to the legislature about gun-related issues. And as for being “pigeonholed,” you have done that quite nicely by yourself by devoting so much time and energy into guns and gun-related issues.

It was you yourself who told me you belonged to GOA, and since you were a member at the times the articles identifying that association were factual and accurate, there is no issue.

If this is the only issue you can raise about the article by my colleague Abdi and myself, we must be doing okay.

Have a nice day, Mr. Rosenberg.

isaac peterson

Gun control supporters are misinformed…as usual Actually, Congress DID stand up for law enforcment by reauthorizing the Tiahrt Amendment.  The Fraternal Order of Police and the ATF both support a renewal of Tiahrt.  What they don’t support is the disclosure of gun trace date to non-law enforcement people (which a repeal would allow) like Mayor Bloomberg and his Mayor’s Coalition, who in turn would use said informatinon to bring frivilous law suits against the gun industry.  Why don’t you report on how many Mayors have withdrawn from the coalition because they are realizing that it is a front for gun control?  Unbiased reporting would be nice for a change.

You have a nice day, too, Mr. Peterson. And, I hope, many more. As I’ve said, I don’t object to being identified as a member of the groups I’m a member of and/or have been a member of; that’s not the point.

I do object — and have objected — to being pigeonholed by reference to one group that I’ve been a member of, and not, as you know, terribly active in; most of the action in GoA takes place on the East Coast.  I’ve been more active in, say, my local DFL caucuses — but I note that I wasn’t identified as “DFL caucus member Joel Rosenberg.”  I’ve been far more active in CCRN/GOCRA, as well — but I’ve never held an official position there, either.  Or when I was a member of NOW — a group I think I’m going to rejoin, but don’t expect to be a leader in or spokesperson for, either.

My objection is to the pigeonholing.  I understand why it’s done, and for some it’s advantageous.  It allows a very nice lady like Judy Fust, a part-time employee (far as I know, these days, the only employee) of the astroturf “Citizens for a Safer Minnesota” to come across as the leader of some sort of grassroots group; for her it’s advantageous.

Me, I don’t have any of those pretensions, and find the pigeonholing objectionable — which is why, of course, I object.  (My one pretension, such as it is, on these issues, is that I bill myself as “the man who wrote the book on carry permit training in Minnesota.”  My only defense — granted, it’s a weak one — is that there is, to the best of my knowledge, only one book on carry permit training in Minnesota, and I, well, wrote it, as well as a couple of dozen other books.)

Each to his own; me, I’m anti-pigeonholing.  (When asked what I’ve written, my standard answer is, “science fiction and fantasy novels, murder mysteries, gun books — you know: the usual.”)

As to the rest of the article, I think it’s fairly decent, if unambitious journalism — it tells us what Rybak’s press release said, and what his claims about the Tiahrt amendment are.  Were it more ambitious, it might go into some detail about how and why what’s usually called the Tiahrt amendment came to be — but, to be fair (and I try to be fair, as challenging as it can be, at times), that certainly would have broken the length limitations that, apparently, the Minnie Mon’s editors, although not the medium, imposed on the writers.

affiliations In defense of Mr. Rosenberg, although he hardly needs my help I owe it to him for the enjoyment I have received from his books.
It is common practice in the media to use affiliations in a discriminatory manner.  If a Democrat is involved in a scandal the only way you know their party affiliation is because it will not be mentioned.  When a Republican is in a scandal their party will be mentioned 5 times in the opening paragraph.  Likewise it is common that hardcore radical Left Wing activists are identified as “A Concerned Citizen”  while any NRA member will be identified as an “Agent of the Scary Gun Lobby”.  I do not have any idea if you are guilty of such journalistic malpractice, but, alas, when such poor conduct becomes commonly associated with a group, all members of the group suffer. 

Get it straight When will somebody get this straight??  The amendment DOES NOT stop law enforcment from obtaining gun trace data for an investigation!  It does stop the data from becoming publicly available.  Why do  you think the Faternal Order of Police and the ATF both want to keep the law? 

The reason Bloomberg and his croonies want the trace data made available to the public is so that they can sue gun dealers out of business.  However the media continues to make it out like the law blocks vital information for local police and that simply isn’t true.  Maybe some journalist will eventually READ the amendmet at some point?

where I get confused Joel was contacted because he is an expert and authority in his field.  If he were just Joe Anyone, there would be both no interest in his words, nor any journalistic reason to include him.

I think we need to think about it less as somehow being denigrated for being a member of whatever group he or she belongs to than accoladed for being prominent in the first place.

Robin Marty,
Managing Editor of Minnesota Monitor
Minneapolis Chapter Leader, Drinking Liberally
Cornell College Alum, 99
etc, etc, etc

(wow, I ran out of accolades fast)

Assuming Facts Not In Evidence — Again

A study by the ATF showed that only 1 percent of gun-dealers account for roughly 60 percent of illegal guns across the country. The Tiahrt amendment blocks the ATF from sharing information about those rogue dealers with local authorities.

Absence of such a crucial crime-fighting tool would make stakes too high, say critics of the amendment

Okay, here we go again.

I imagine that one percent of fast food restaurants are responsible for 60 percent of the heart disease in the United States. Of course, that one percent — McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, etc. — probably sell 60 percent of the fast food, as mom-and-pop eateries can’t touch their volume.

Why not dig a little deeper than the press release? After all, that’s what journalists do, right?

Why not try to find out what percentage of the TOTAL guns sold were sold by that one percent of dealers? Try to determine, maybe, whether they are “rogue” or just high-volume?

As for affiliations, why not use relevant ones? Joel Rosenberg might be a GOA member, but to parallel Sue Fust’s attribution, you could (should) describe Rosenberg as “a prominent Twin Cities carry rights activist and author of “Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota.”

Now you’re confusing me. … not that that’s hard to do.

If I’m an expert and authority in this field (to be clear:  that’s your claim, not mine, although I do thank you for the praise) and that’s why I was asked for a quote, why are we only finding out about this now? 

If that — the notion that I’m some sort of expert and authority on this stuff — is why I was asked for a comment (rather than, say, to put some veneer of balance on the story, perhaps) it would make sense to, well, mention that or something to that effect in the story. 

That’s just basic journalism.  Otherwise, it’s the same as saying, “Robin Marty, a member AAA, feels that increasing the speed limit to 75 on the Interstates is a good idea.”  (That’s a hypothetical; I don’t know if you’re a member of AAA — although, if not, I recommend that you join — or what your feeling is on speed limits on the Interstate.)

Lots of folks are members of the GoA, or the NRA, or the NOW, or the AAA — but not a lot of folks are experts on matters of firearms law, women’s rights, or best travel practices when using cars.

As for me, I prefer the good journalistic and personal practice of, when possible, making provable claims about objectively-verifiable facts, rather than braggadocio, but if you folks think I’m an expert on this stuff, and that’s why you called me for a quote, it would seem only reasonable for you to say so. 

That aside, I’m not sure that referring to anything I’ve done is necessarily an “accolade” — I’ve written and published a couple of dozen novels, for example, but that should only amount to an accolade if they’re any good.

Me, I dunno. 

Fair and Balanced linking Succinctly, Why is “The Mayors against Illegal Guns” a Hot Link, and “Gun Owners of America”, plain text?

So many Mayors! Millionaire Mr Bloomberg has made alot of noise with his posse, Mayors against Gun violence. While a noble title, if it was such a great idea, why is it a group of only 225 Mayors?
What about the other 8066 Mayors in this great nation?

Good question I’m also curious, as long as we’re asking, why there was no link to the blog on these matters by some guy the Minnie Mon believes is an expert on these matters, and why there was a link to Judy Fust’s astroturf antigun group where we learn

1.  that one of the founders of her astroturf group was recently involved in a

…discussion centered around productive, wholistic (sic) ways to address violent crime in the Twin Cities.

, and

2.  that the (apparently formerly) Joyce-funded “Citizens for a ‘Safer’ Minnesota” has fallen on such hard times that they can no longer afford a spellchecker.

You’re not wrong, but you’re not right, either Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the capo de tutti capi of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (presumably a group formed in reaction to the little-known “Mayors In Favor of Illegal Guns” in the same way that his equally cartoonish counterparts in DC Comics’ The Justice League banded together to stop the depredations of The Injustice League), is a millionaire, sure, but that’s an understatement — he’s worth somewhere around 5 billion dollars. 

I don’t understand why more mayors haven’t joined his band, either.  If demagoguing gun issues actually can lower violent crime, a guy’d think every elected official in the country would want to get in on it.

Ummmmmmm Not to speak for Joel – he does just fine by himself – but I’d guess the answer might  be “because it’s important to him, and he makes the time for it”. 

Which is why I do, as well. 

What’s your excuse? 

And if you’re going to make time for a debate like this, take some of that time to learn to make a deeper argument than “if you’re so busy, why are you here?”

Just a thought.

Calling to this chunk of folks right here I’m sure we’re way too far gone, but debate the post, not the commentors (except when the commentors are part of the post, I guess).  Let’s try to stay civil.

Mayors?–not mine! I believe that outside of their pestilent city limits, the proper term for a Mayor is “Citizen”.  His opinion carries no more weight than my own.  If these Mayors are to exercise political power–and enforce laws–in MY city, then I DEMAND voting rights in their next election.  “Without representation” was after all one of the reasons for the revolution.  I HAVE elected representatives at the city, county, district, state, and national levels–and NONE of them is named Bloomberg.  This is an attempt to exercise power without the bother of standing for national election. 

Uuuh, On the Other Hand We all know that criminals are eager to obtain their weapons from legitimate sources, of course.  So knowing who bought the gun would be SO helpful in tracking down criminals.  Any one interested in buying a bridge?

The problem with the mayors’ position is that it is deceitful.

Their position has nothing at all to do with crime — the police have access to this info in case of a crime. The thing that started this whole effort was New York’s Blumberg wanting to mine the data for lawsuits to bankrupt anyone linked to guns.

It’s pretty widely known that his end game is to get rid of the second amendment, so that like other world states our people in power need not fear armed rebellion.

It has to do with the hope of suing somebody who is accessible and has resources about actions over which they have no control.

Might as well sue auto manufacturers every time some drunk runs somebody down — which I suspect would happen if some litigators thought they could get away with it, for 30% of the take.

Bad idea, unless, for instance, one wants one’s alcohol purchases info to  be eventually maintained and accessible to anyone who wants to extort him/her — that’s the sort of thing this is.

Yup. Orthogonally, I’ve had a couple of conversations with Isaac Peterson, one about this story.  I can understand why he won’t use my preferred designation for myself — “just a guy” (I know that doesn’t pigeonhole easily, but, hey, I don’t want to be easily pigeonholed) — but would rather use a different attribution, having settled, in two stories now, on

Joel Rosenberg, a member of Gun Owners of America.

I’m uncomfortable with that, so I’ve decided to resign from the Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and the JPFO.  Which will leave me as a member — once I renew an old membership — of two, and only two organizations:  the Automobile Association of America and the National Organization for Women.

I can see it now:

“Let’s face it:  the reason that these mayors want to try to reduce law abiding citizens’ access to handguns is that they really don’t give a damn when women are rape victims,” said Joel Rosenberg, a member of the National Organization for Women and the AAA.

Mr. Rosenberg, I am sorry you don’t like being identified as being a member of a group you have actually belonged to. When I spoke with you I informed you that I was NOT going to refer to you as “just a guy.” If you objected so strongly you had the option of declining to comment.

As I’ve explained to you more than once, “just a guy” does not provide any explanation about why your views appear in gun-related stories. As I’ve also explained, “just guys” don’t write books about guns, nor do “just guys” testify to the legislature about gun-related issues. And as for being “pigeonholed,” you have done that quite nicely by yourself by devoting so much time and energy into guns and gun-related issues.

It was you yourself who told me you belonged to GOA, and since you were a member at the times the articles identifying that association were factual and accurate, there is no issue.

If this is the only issue you can raise about the article by my colleague Abdi and myself, we must be doing okay.

Have a nice day, Mr. Rosenberg.

isaac peterson

Gun control supporters are misinformed…as usual Actually, Congress DID stand up for law enforcment by reauthorizing the Tiahrt Amendment.  The Fraternal Order of Police and the ATF both support a renewal of Tiahrt.  What they don’t support is the disclosure of gun trace date to non-law enforcement people (which a repeal would allow) like Mayor Bloomberg and his Mayor’s Coalition, who in turn would use said informatinon to bring frivilous law suits against the gun industry.  Why don’t you report on how many Mayors have withdrawn from the coalition because they are realizing that it is a front for gun control?  Unbiased reporting would be nice for a change.

You have a nice day, too, Mr. Peterson. And, I hope, many more. As I’ve said, I don’t object to being identified as a member of the groups I’m a member of and/or have been a member of; that’s not the point.

I do object — and have objected — to being pigeonholed by reference to one group that I’ve been a member of, and not, as you know, terribly active in; most of the action in GoA takes place on the East Coast.  I’ve been more active in, say, my local DFL caucuses — but I note that I wasn’t identified as “DFL caucus member Joel Rosenberg.”  I’ve been far more active in CCRN/GOCRA, as well — but I’ve never held an official position there, either.  Or when I was a member of NOW — a group I think I’m going to rejoin, but don’t expect to be a leader in or spokesperson for, either.

My objection is to the pigeonholing.  I understand why it’s done, and for some it’s advantageous.  It allows a very nice lady like Judy Fust, a part-time employee (far as I know, these days, the only employee) of the astroturf “Citizens for a Safer Minnesota” to come across as the leader of some sort of grassroots group; for her it’s advantageous.

Me, I don’t have any of those pretensions, and find the pigeonholing objectionable — which is why, of course, I object.  (My one pretension, such as it is, on these issues, is that I bill myself as “the man who wrote the book on carry permit training in Minnesota.”  My only defense — granted, it’s a weak one — is that there is, to the best of my knowledge, only one book on carry permit training in Minnesota, and I, well, wrote it, as well as a couple of dozen other books.)

Each to his own; me, I’m anti-pigeonholing.  (When asked what I’ve written, my standard answer is, “science fiction and fantasy novels, murder mysteries, gun books — you know: the usual.”)

As to the rest of the article, I think it’s fairly decent, if unambitious journalism — it tells us what Rybak’s press release said, and what his claims about the Tiahrt amendment are.  Were it more ambitious, it might go into some detail about how and why what’s usually called the Tiahrt amendment came to be — but, to be fair (and I try to be fair, as challenging as it can be, at times), that certainly would have broken the length limitations that, apparently, the Minnie Mon’s editors, although not the medium, imposed on the writers.

affiliations In defense of Mr. Rosenberg, although he hardly needs my help I owe it to him for the enjoyment I have received from his books.

It is common practice in the media to use affiliations in a discriminatory manner.  If a Democrat is involved in a scandal the only way you know their party affiliation is because it will not be mentioned.  When a Republican is in a scandal their party will be mentioned 5 times in the opening paragraph.  Likewise it is common that hardcore radical Left Wing activists are identified as “A Concerned Citizen”  while any NRA member will be identified as an “Agent of the Scary Gun Lobby”.  I do not have any idea if you are guilty of such journalistic malpractice, but, alas, when such poor conduct becomes commonly associated with a group, all members of the group suffer. 

Get it straight When will somebody get this straight??  The amendment DOES NOT stop law enforcment from obtaining gun trace data for an investigation!  It does stop the data from becoming publicly available.  Why do  you think the Faternal Order of Police and the ATF both want to keep the law? 

The reason Bloomberg and his croonies want the trace data made available to the public is so that they can sue gun dealers out of business.  However the media continues to make it out like the law blocks vital information for local police and that simply isn’t true.  Maybe some journalist will eventually READ the amendmet at some point?

where I get confused Joel was contacted because he is an expert and authority in his field.  If he were just Joe Anyone, there would be both no interest in his words, nor any journalistic reason to include him.

I think we need to think about it less as somehow being denigrated for being a member of whatever group he or she belongs to than accoladed for being prominent in the first place.

Robin Marty,

Managing Editor of Minnesota Monitor

Minneapolis Chapter Leader, Drinking Liberally

Cornell College Alum, 99

etc, etc, etc

(wow, I ran out of accolades fast)

Assuming Facts Not In Evidence — Again

A study by the ATF showed that only 1 percent of gun-dealers account for roughly 60 percent of illegal guns across the country. The Tiahrt amendment blocks the ATF from sharing information about those rogue dealers with local authorities.

Absence of such a crucial crime-fighting tool would make stakes too high, say critics of the amendment

Okay, here we go again.

I imagine that one percent of fast food restaurants are responsible for 60 percent of the heart disease in the United States. Of course, that one percent — McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, etc. — probably sell 60 percent of the fast food, as mom-and-pop eateries can’t touch their volume.

Why not dig a little deeper than the press release? After all, that’s what journalists do, right?

Why not try to find out what percentage of the TOTAL guns sold were sold by that one percent of dealers? Try to determine, maybe, whether they are “rogue” or just high-volume?

As for affiliations, why not use relevant ones? Joel Rosenberg might be a GOA member, but to parallel Sue Fust’s attribution, you could (should) describe Rosenberg as “a prominent Twin Cities carry rights activist and author of “Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota.”

Now you’re confusing me. … not that that’s hard to do.

If I’m an expert and authority in this field (to be clear:  that’s your claim, not mine, although I do thank you for the praise) and that’s why I was asked for a quote, why are we only finding out about this now? 

If that — the notion that I’m some sort of expert and authority on this stuff — is why I was asked for a comment (rather than, say, to put some veneer of balance on the story, perhaps) it would make sense to, well, mention that or something to that effect in the story. 

That’s just basic journalism.  Otherwise, it’s the same as saying, “Robin Marty, a member AAA, feels that increasing the speed limit to 75 on the Interstates is a good idea.”  (That’s a hypothetical; I don’t know if you’re a member of AAA — although, if not, I recommend that you join — or what your feeling is on speed limits on the Interstate.)

Lots of folks are members of the GoA, or the NRA, or the NOW, or the AAA — but not a lot of folks are experts on matters of firearms law, women’s rights, or best travel practices when using cars.

As for me, I prefer the good journalistic and personal practice of, when possible, making provable claims about objectively-verifiable facts, rather than braggadocio, but if you folks think I’m an expert on this stuff, and that’s why you called me for a quote, it would seem only reasonable for you to say so. 

That aside, I’m not sure that referring to anything I’ve done is necessarily an “accolade” — I’ve written and published a couple of dozen novels, for example, but that should only amount to an accolade if they’re any good.

Me, I dunno. 

authorities Actually, I thought the article was better than most on this subject have been.  A few quibbles perhaps, but better than most.  However, the article –and this discussion of Mr. Rosenberg–are illustrations of what journalism has become.  “He Said, She Said”  with competing “authorities”.  There is an actual written bill with actual legal meaning which can be examined and analyzed  and measured against all the claims, to determine the Truth.  This has been studiously avoided by most of the press. 

I generally avoid using titles and affiliations in the silly belief  Truth stands on its own, and Falsehood cannot be propped up by Certificates or Polls.  Those are too easily manipulated.  “Over 200 mayors” sounds impressive.  But if you reported it as a percentage of the Mayors in America it would sound trivial.. I wonder how many Mayors are NRA members ?  More than 200 I bet. 

Exactly And well and succinctly put.  Thanks

Yes! dlyn has it exactly right — get the facts.

And, in a limited way, Messrs. Aynti and Peterson did.  The weak mayor of Minneapolis issued a press release; here’s what it said.

Okay; that’s a fact. It’s kind of high school journalism, but that’s okay, I guess. 

Who?  RT Rybak, mayor of Minneapolis.  (That he’s a weak mayor — term technically used — was omitted, but that’s okay; we’re talking high school journalism, here.)

What?  A press release, calling for a portion of a bill to be removed (which oversimplifies the whole thing, but that’s okay).  Key quotes from Rybak’s PR. Check.

When?  Last week.  Check.

Where?  Well, kinda vague.  Did he just send out a PR?  Call a press conference?  If so, with whom?  Where?  Let’s be generous and check it off.

For college-level journalism, let’s go to Why?  The only thing on that we have are the quotes from Rybak, a response from some member of the GoA, and from a health professional (I think Judy’s a nurse, although she does bill herself as a “health professional” in other contexts; the previous head honchette of the CSM had an MD) with a part-time gig as a lobbyist for an astroturf antigun group.

Huh?  What does the Tiahrt amendment really do?  And why are some people so strongly in favor of it?  Is it some payoff to the NRA, a politically powerful grassroots organization?  Why would they not want gun trace data released?  Is there some history there?  What mayor started this campaign, and what frustrations, if any, led him to try to get trace data? 

There are, in fact, answers — many of them — to all of those questions.  Some of them can be answered, as suggested, by looking at the bill itself — it’s not exactly hidden.  Others by a process of gathering information, evaluating it, organizing it, and writing a concise but detailed account . . .

Call it “reporting.”

Somebody has a lot of free time Mr. Rosenberg,

If you are, as you imply, a busy man with plenty of gun and others under his belt, then why do you seem to have so much time scoulding the writers of this fine piece over nuances?

What is it with the media?! Horse – You got it right!  Virtually every article I have read (and every sound bite I have heard) on the Tiahrt Amendment states that it…limits access to gun trace data…  But, not one piece that I have seen from the mainstream media has stated the whole truth – namely that the access is limited TO proper law enforcement agencies conducting bona fide criminal investigations.  The data is off limits to lawyers and any non-law enforcement entities.

I also noticed that the mainstream media has been consistent in reporting that the NRA supports the amendment, but rarely (if ever) reports that the FOP and the BATFE itself support the amendment as well.

What happened to ethical and unbiased journalism?

I dunno. Why do you have time to engage in such scolding, yourself.  Life is, in many ways, a mystery.

As to this being a “fine piece,” well, no; it isn’t — Mr. Peterson and Mr. Aynte are, New Journalistic Fellows, and surely should be able to do better than Journalism 101, and not fall short of it.

They did so Granted that two major papers ignored this seemingly important story, I salute Mr. Peterson and Mr. Aynte for taking the time to cover it.

Each to his or her own… … my own take is that if the local papers treated yet another PR from Rybak as being news, they’d be doing a worse job than they already are.

Fair and Balanced linking Succinctly, Why is “The Mayors against Illegal Guns” a Hot Link, and “Gun Owners of America”, plain text?

So many Mayors! Millionaire Mr Bloomberg has made alot of noise with his posse, Mayors against Gun violence. While a noble title, if it was such a great idea, why is it a group of only 225 Mayors?

What about the other 8066 Mayors in this great nation?

Good question I’m also curious, as long as we’re asking, why there was no link to the blog on these matters by some guy the Minnie Mon believes is an expert on these matters, and why there was a link to Judy Fust’s astroturf antigun group where we learn

1.  that one of the founders of her astroturf group was recently involved in a

…discussion centered around productive, wholistic (sic) ways to address violent crime in the Twin Cities.

, and

2.  that the (apparently formerly) Joyce-funded “Citizens for a ‘Safer’ Minnesota” has fallen on such hard times that they can no longer afford a spellchecker.

You’re not wrong, but you’re not right, either Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the capo de tutti capi of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (presumably a group formed in reaction to the little-known “Mayors In Favor of Illegal Guns” in the same way that his equally cartoonish counterparts in DC Comics’ The Justice League banded together to stop the depredations of The Injustice League), is a millionaire, sure, but that’s an understatement — he’s worth somewhere around 5 billion dollars. 

I don’t understand why more mayors haven’t joined his band, either.  If demagoguing gun issues actually can lower violent crime, a guy’d think every elected official in the country would want to get in on it.

Ummmmmmm Not to speak for Joel – he does just fine by himself – but I’d guess the answer might  be “because it’s important to him, and he makes the time for it”. 

Which is why I do, as well. 

What’s your excuse? 

And if you’re going to make time for a debate like this, take some of that time to learn to make a deeper argument than “if you’re so busy, why are you here?”

Just a thought.

Calling to this chunk of folks right here I’m sure we’re way too far gone, but debate the post, not the commentors (except when the commentors are part of the post, I guess).  Let’s try to stay civil.

Mayors?–not mine! I believe that outside of their pestilent city limits, the proper term for a Mayor is “Citizen”.  His opinion carries no more weight than my own.  If these Mayors are to exercise political power–and enforce laws–in MY city, then I DEMAND voting rights in their next election.  “Without representation” was after all one of the reasons for the revolution.  I HAVE elected representatives at the city, county, district, state, and national levels–and NONE of them is named Bloomberg.  This is an attempt to exercise power without the bother of standing for national election.