I listened to this in the car last week. I like the message. Generally when I try to convince people of the complexity of the potential problems or the range of training topics they should be pursuing, they look at me like I'm ridiculous.
I've had these conversations with people ranging from highly proficient competitive shooters all the way down to brand new gun owners. Few of them seem to understand the wide range of skills and knowledge they may need to apply to optimally deal with potential use of force scenarios. Even most of the ones who seem to agree during the discussion rarely take the initiative to find training.
Either they believe they already possess adequate skills or just aren't adequately motivated. Realistically, they may just be making a fairly accurate risk assessment. The chances the average citizen will get in to a gunfight are relatively low. Of the ones who do, many are won with simple tactics as shown in the Tom Givens Lessons from the Street DVD and many other anecdotes. The police come and quickly sort out that it was self defense and move on.
Still, there are plenty of examples of situations where it didn't go well for the self-defender. The ones that come to mind usually fall in to the shouldn't-have-gotten-involved category. Some would have gone better with some verbal skills. Both are part of the soft skills John is talking about. A couple would have gone better with some grappling skills.
I guess I'm saying I agree with John's take on it. Its all in the tail risk category though. I think if you're going to spend a lot of time on the tail risks you should approach it as completely as possible. We prepare for tail risks because they are high consequence, not because they are high probability. Some people may think its low enough probability that just doing what they perceive as the minimum will suffice. This may be the mindset that has to be overcome to get people to prepare themselves in all the categories John outlines.