I'm not sure it is possible to "have a winner or loser" on such a debate, it is impossible to really know how much (if any ) training and/or what type(s) of training make any difference much less the best difference. People make mistakes, accidents happen man made stuff "fails" in critical ways often at bad times.
I am not against training at all, I do have to question it being "Required" along with time and $ having a possible adverse affect on someone's lives or even if they live or not. I also think if someone has had background checks recently at work etc. they shouldn't have to wait 90 days or so (especially when you have had extensive FBI background checks done) but it doesn't seem much of this was given much consideration other than "how much revenue" can we produce while "allowing folks to exercise their own rights- which we don't grant anyway"
When the Government starts trying to restrict Rights, that in and of itself is not a good thing IMO, when they keep lower income folks out of the process that is no doubt wrong and should not be allowed IMHO. Lower income folks live in more crime prone areas to begin with (by and large) so it seems to me to be a "double edged sword" if you will.
Sure I want 100% safety for everyone who carries and everyone around those who carry, it is the question of is that even possible and if it were how would one go about that, it's not done on the streets and highways of any place I'm aware of, life has risks and "deadly weapons" involve much more than firearms . When a nut kills several people with any gun, it's big news, when some drunk kills a van full of people on the road, it's "normal" , seems the media "hype" is another big issue. Why should their 1st Amendment rights "trump" anyone's second?
There must be a better and more fair way to go about this, beginning with not charging for the exercise of one's rights. IF you want to carry and IF training /testing/ permits are going to be required, the citizen should not be charged and long waits should not be the"norm" IMHO