According to this article, the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed...unless it's to keep "unqualified" gun owners, criminals, and crazies from getting guns. Or to keep everyone else from getting bullets. Or if it is just a three-month wait. Or she doesn't feel comfortable with you having a gun.
Besides the spelling (than/then confusion caught my eye), grammar, punctuation, and word misuse (condone means to encourage, not discourage), the article lacks solid reasoning.
At one point, the author tells us that training is critical. Later, she says that guns owned for self-defense do not justify ammunition purchases, since you shouldn't be shooting in self-defense very often. She also completely misses the protection from tyranny side of the Second Amendment.
She cites gun laws and crime stats in other countries without citing sources or telling us the actual statistics. She tells us that the difference is in attitude, and that the American mentality is problematic. No evidence, of course. She even cites a Jodie Foster movie as proof of our problematic mindset. (By the way, for those who are unaware, Jodie Foster is very anti-gun.) A movie about vigilantism is her proof that Americans think that the solution to every problem is a gun.
The biggest argument in the article is that people "may not need a gun." Y'know, because you're certain to be safe everywhere you go. Because people aren't ever robbed, beaten, or raped by those who have no qualms with doing harm.
The worst part is that there are almost certainly people who will buy into this crap.
Thanks to War on Guns for pointing this out.