It's not a matter of receiving quality training. It's a matter of what the law requires. It's also a matter of this whole "people should have to shoot to qualify" argument as a solution in search of a problem.

AK and VT require nothing...other than you be legally allowed to own/possess a firearm. I don't recall hearing a lot of problems coming out of those states with people carrying guns and having accidents where innocents are harmed.

The bottom line is this. As soon as the gov't has the ability to make you "qualify", how long will it be before they make the qualification standards so stringent that few people will be able to pass them? I'd be extremely careful about wishing for more gov't restrictions on your right to carry if I were you. Also, if training is so important to minimizing accidents, why is it that by some estimates police officers shoot the wrong person at a rate about 6.5 times higher in armed confrontaions than legally armed citizens? Should I remind you of the "I'm the only one professional enough" video?

As soon as someone can show me statistics that prove a minimum level of training - or no training at all - is not sufficient for issuance of a permit, I'll change my opinion. Are there isolated incidents of permit holders causing negligent harm? Of course. Are there enough to warrant mandatory qualification training? No way! Until then, I think it's gonna take a lot more than comparing the God-given right to self-defense with operating a car to get me to change my mind.

And before you use the "training is required to operate a car" argument, you might consider how well all that training works to keep people from harming themselves or others with their car. That's a pretty lame argument and doesn't stand up well under scrutiny.