http://www.uexpress.com/asiseeit/
This article is so incredibly flawed:
1) She cites one specific example of gun violence, then implies this means "gun assaults are rising", without citing any proof to back this up.
2) She uses the classic "everyone else says I'm right" argument, citing that because France and Britain (among other countries) ban guns, it must be right. She fails to mention their crime statistics.
3) She uses the "I will prevail in the future argument." This presumes that future generations will necessarily agree with her, the current batch of old codgers just needs to die off first. (She talks about how future anthropologists will be puzzled by individual gun ownership in the future.)
4) She assumes that banning guns will automatically lead to a drop in violent crimes.
5) She assumes that banning guns will make it impossible for criminals to get them. (It has worked so well for cocaine and meth.)
6) She cites a flawed study that handpicked certain cities to show and increase in gun crime--the purpose of the study was to bolster arguments for banning guns.
7) She cites Michael Bloomberg as a Republican that "gets it". I contend he is neither.
Edit: Linked to the story in a different location. For some reason, when Yahoo has really long URL names, I can't like them here correctly.