Only if you believe that the only deaths that matter are gun deaths. Would you say things were better off if your overall murder rate tripled, provided that the gun-murder rate dropped to zero?

Sorry but I think this is the weakest part of your argument. Of course I'm not saying that I would support zero gun deaths if it meant an overall tripling in the homocide rate. Nobody would support that! And I'm definitely not arguing that non-gun deaths are unimportant. But in a debate about gun control, it makes perfect sense to focus on gun deaths.

In a debate about pollution, why would I talk about deaths due to car crashes? Surely the only relevant deaths are those due to pollution?

How about Harvard's? They found that strict gun control measures implemented in an effort to reduce high crime rates resulted in strict gun control measures and high crime rates (PDF).[1]

This is an interesting paper, but I think it's massively flawed. I'm happy to go into detail, but in the interests of keeping this comment (relatively) brief, I'll just highlight my main objections.

Firstly, the authors consistently neglect to distinguish between "violent crime" and "homicides". Gun control measures won't necessarily affect rates of violent crime. If every gun left Honduras today, the violent crime rate would remain relatively constant - because there are social, economic and political factors driving the high crime rate. However, fewer violent crime incidents would end up as homicides.

The violent crime rate in the UK and US is relatively equal. The homicide rate is vastly different. Stabbings are very common in the UK; shootings are very common in the US.

Secondly, the authors compare different countries while ignoring a vast array of economic, social and political factors. Comparing the violent crime rate between Estonia and Finland is essentially meaningless unless you take into account socioeconomic factors (GDP, employment rate, culture). It's actually ridiculous to compare Estonia and Finland without taking these factors into account. The two countries could not be more different.

OK this is getting very long so I'll keep it brief now.

but if the data are all factual (in as far as they go), but intentionally show an incomplete picture, how would you have someone refute such an article?

Provide alternative data. An accusation of bias is meaningless unless you can back it up in some way.

How many of the graphs (not data, the graphs themselves) were taken with Bloomberg as their source

It's impossible to tell whether the Bloomberg group had reprinted these graphs at some point. However I would day that the vast majority of data were taken from Gallup polls, governments, and the Small Arms Survey.