Clearly, history should provide the answer to the question, which itself is fuzzy. Is the question that the training may not be adequate? Is the question that the result of the online training is the cause of more accidents? Is the question just an implication from people who constantly fault any firearm law that makes legal carry easier?
I don't know what the question is. The only thing I know is that the efficacy of the online training will not be known until we have some empirical evidence either postitive or negative. I have read of opponents of the idea that the "relaxed" training standard has caused an increase in non-resident applications and awarding of non-resident licenses. They imply this is bad, but they cite no increase in incidents. The increase in licenses is what they see as bad.
So there's no answer because there's no clear question.
Cogito, ergo armatum sum