Why does it matter if another nation has done this? The US is the best nation BECAUSE we have the second amendment to protect us from crap like this. Politicians attempt to circumvent our constitution constantly. This would, at minimum, be cut number 500 out of 1,000 cuts.I agree that in theory, any training requirement could be used as a backdoor assault on weapons carry by government officials who want to discourage armed citizens.
But, in REAL-LIFE, has that ever been their approach anywhere? As contrasted to just flat-out making certain guns illegal based on their characteristics, or making certain people ineligible to own a gun, or requiring a more thorough background check (adding personal and work references, etc?)
New York State is about as anti-gun as you can imagine. They don't recognize individual self-defense against crime as a legit reason to have a handgun permit (unless you've already been the subject of confirmed death threats or face extra-high odds of being robbed or kidnapped because of your job or the political offices you hold). They banned assault type semi-autos almost 30 years ago. They tried to limit all magazines to 7 rounds, which the courts threw out and said you could have up to 10, but no higher than that. New York State's governor is a gun-hating Stalinist who led the campaign for states to sue gun companies for the costs associated with gun crime and treating gunshot victims...
... and yet New York State's mandatory training requirement is not much more involved that Georgia's hunter safety course. It's short and simple. It doesn't even require shooting a real gun at a range; it could be done with prop guns, dummies whose actions can be opened and triggers manipulated like real guns, or BB/ pellet pistols, or AirSoft guns. There is a hands-on component, but it could be done in an office environment, even a suite at the local mall.
Does anybody know of any state, or nation, that has made unreasonable changes to the standards for a carry permit qualification test as a backdoor method of infringing on the carry rights of otherwise-qualified people?
Setting the constitution aside for one moment, what evidence is there to support such a bold notion? There would have to be major, irrefutable evidence showing that mandatory training saves lives in order to institute such an infringement. To my knowledge, such evidence does not exist. So why give up what little we have left for a "feel good" half measure that is based on emotion? I know it would make many feel better if they knew that everyone had attended their mandatory government training, but that doesn't cut it.