Really? Then where does common sense come from?
Common sense may INCLUDE instinct, it is NOT synonymous with instinct and it may be the OPPOSITE of instinct.
Here's an example of no common sense and being unteachable:
I own a pizza shop. It takes about 15 minutes, start of preparation to customers hands, to make chicken wings.
If an employee has been taught that it takes 12 minutes to COOK the wings, and they have been taught that they have to sauce the wings and put them in a container, then should it really be necessary to specify that 5 or 6 minutes before those wings are expected does NOT leave enough time to get them done?
No, it should not. "Common sense" would tell you that you need more time than that, yet, there are those who can't quite seem to get it.
Teach them again.... sit down with them and ask why the wings are late, again.... ask them if they understand that it takes 15 minutes to get wings ready... "Yes, I understand.".... tomorrow, 8 minutes from due, no wings cooking....
I do agree that a class of only a few hours is insufficient for someone without a solid foundation already. The point is not that training isn't important. The point is that what now tends to pass for training is grossly insufficient and that in many classes the students aren't held accountable with enough rigor for having mastered the material.
How much training do you think the average person is going to take "on demand"?
When I took the hunters safety course, a government required class for hunters, there were 3 people out of a class of 25 or so that scored 100 on the test. 2 people FAILED the test. This is not Linear Algebra. These are questions about which direction is safe to point a gun, AFTER it has been taught mere hours before and AFTER we have gone over the EXACT same test word for word, minutes before. People FAILED!
The class was pointless. Anyone who failed that test learned nothing that day. Anyone who passed could have EASILY passed the same test WITHOUT the class.
When I took the required class to get a CCW permit in my county, they taught us almost the identical information from the hunters safety course with about 15 minutes added on regarding how we should not really feel the need to carry all the time and the ADA telling us that our area is so safe that we don't need a gun but they support our right to have one, but we don't need to carry it. All this, followed by 20 minutes or so of legal speak, and 10 (yes, 10) rounds fired from a Glock.
So, if a "few hours is grossly insufficient" and "what now passes for training is grossly insufficient" (two points on which we agree, BTW) how exactly do you contend that the average man could be reasonably expected to acquire enough training that it will actually matter?
I do agree that a very basic course should be required for firearms ownership unless a person can demonstrate competence without the course. People buying guns that have never even touched a gun are dangerous people. Beyond that, I do not believe that there is any reasonable amount of training that could be required.
How many people in America actually carry a gun? It's small percentage of people, tiny tiny percentage. THOSE people we have to get trained?..... but.....
yet, virtually everybody in America drives a car. What is the required training? NOTHING, in most places. The "test" to get a license is 15 minutes long and hasn't changed (in NY state) since 1937. Are cars dangerous? Well, yeah, but guess what? We let people wreck cars, destroy property, demonstrate that they are dangerous and sometimes even KILL other people with a car and then we let them drive again, STILL WITH NO TRAINING!
But we're worried about guns....