It's a typo. It should read "non-experts." The real problem is with the affirmative claim made by the author, which is nonsense. She thinks concealed carry advocates are of the opinion that random citizens in a one-on-one confrontation with an armed agressor would be as effective as people trained specifically for the job. Nobody has ever made that claim. She also believes that Alaska repudiated -- by a truly fabulous extrapolation -- the whole principle of self-defense.
Neither of those things is true. The argument for concealed carry is nothing more than this: in a confrontation with an violent aggressor who stands more of a chance: an armed citizen, or a disarmed one? [Hint for the Lefties, because you find this so difficult: the armed citizen.]
The AK decision doesn't repudiate this concept, it doesn't even address it. Nor does it "come dangerously close" to anything even remotely resembling it (or remotely resembling her own far-fetched interpretation, for that matter.) It simply says, "any state run enterprise better be conducted by highly trained people because the state is going to be responsible for the consequences."
That applies, by the way, to ordinary citizens putting out a fire as opposed to trained volunteer or professional fireman. Yet (strangely) no one (except liberals) advocates that if an untrained citizen sees a fire starting on top of his stove that he should step aside and wait for the professionals to arrive before putting it out -- however long that might take.
Your analysis is right on the mark, especially this part that puts everything in perspective:
“In a confrontation with a violent aggressor... who stands more of a chance: an armed citizen, or a disarmed one?”
Can’t you just imagine one of these dipshits being asked this question.....and then unbelievably saying “unarmed”?