First, why look for an alternative if someone has bought a gun for self-defense and it turns out their risk of being attacked by a stranger in a way that a gun could help them is very, very low? Why shouldn’t they just get rid of the gun?

Because some want to have the option even understanding the risk is very low. So if they are also willing to do the correct things that go with gun ownership I respect that decision as perfectly acceptable.
Can’t really emphasize this enough.

I am not suggesting more than police-level training. Police get trained for awhile before they go out into the field, but again, they’re trained continually, they’re out with other officers, and they have to actually use what they learn in real-life situations.

Oh so we agree that training at the same quality as the police get is adequate? To me that’s new information about how you feel. See we agree more than you think.

I don’t get how you can think asking if something is deliberate obstruction isn’t dishonest. Why would you come to a conclusion that I wanted that level of training for any other reason than thinking that level of training is appropriate? Where do you get that from?

The most honest answer I have is my surprise at your level of outrage. And again you misrepresent my words. I said DISCOURAGEMENT. I did NOT say obstruction.

There are lots of gun control laws that are deliberate discouragement. Would you be so kind as to oppose those as well? (With the stipulation for discussion such laws exist)

I don’t challenge your expertise on statistics. Just sometimes that next step-The conclusion part. The “what to do differently given those numbers” part.