I summed up the original article like this:
Two main points:
1. The required training is practically worthless, and
2. The chances of needing a gun to save your life are very small.
Jim Reynolds, who claimed Milloy was biased, which may be true, had this to say as a sort-of general explanation of the need and the seriousness of being armed for self-defense:
When I stand up to crime with my handgun, defending my family at home, or perhaps Milloy and his family at a restaurant or some other public place, I'll be glad that there is someone like him with a pen and notepad in hand to write about it. Obviously, he'd have his hands full with that.
So deep into the fantasy of protecting themselves with a gun, many gun owners believe this. The delicious fantasy blinds them to the fact that the chances are much more likely their gun will be misused before it is ever needed defensively. Part of that misuse feeds into the gun flow from lawful ownership into criminal hands. Once that happens, the gun is sure to be misused some more, thus compounding the problem.
I'm sure those possibilities are not part of the training course. It's as if the gun manufacturers and gun dealers are tricking people into wanting guns by unfairly representing the need. An honest approach would be to admit that there's a big downside to owning a gun, that statistically many bad things are more likely to happen than one good one. If, knowing that, someone decides he wants a gun anyway, fine. But distorting the facts and pushing the paranoia to sell guns is bad.
Regular gun owners are involved in this too. Having swallowed the "need" pitch themselves, they naturally feel more comfortable surrounded by like-minded folks with whom they can mock the serious concerns of the gun control movement.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.