One thing I like about this article, and one thing I would caution against:

-NotPhil chose a particularly good paragraph to highlight. As a twentysomething male NRA member raised in rural america, there is a large psychological mechanism that drives most of us- the idea that our particular skill and sense of responsibility with firearm usage makes us unique among the general populace. There is an elitist, superhero-like complex that is associated with that, where our hobby and our time has been devoted just so as to effectively prepare us for protecting the innocent in a crisis. Even if you forget for a moment the fact that this is probably a fallacy of hubris, there is still another problem... If everyone acted as a skilled protector, there would be many gunmen attempting to subdue the original gunman, creating a chaotic situation in which the initial agressor becomes startlingly hard to identify.

-One thing I would like to caution against... The author takes a leap in logic to which I cannot subscribe. He assumes that police training results in a greater firearm proficiency level than an average citizen. While possible, my experience is that the most impressive member of any gun club or range outclasses law enforcement by a staggering margin, and that a typical cop falls somewhere near the median in terms of accuracy and placement among the gun club regulars. Only those members of law enforcement that take on shooting as a hobby as well as a part of their work approach the level of the pure hobbyists.