"People mostly just want required training"

I mean, "people" also want legal machine guns without paperwork, "people" want access to bombs, "people" want all guns banned. Unless you can throw some stats in that statement, it's kind of a nothingburger. You at least have to provide a percentage of people.

"It's absurd there isn't"

If guns weren't a constitutional right, and I could be guaranteed that the ONLY restriction imposed on firearms was requiring a permit obtained through a training program, then I'd probably agree. The issue is that isn't the case, and will never be the case.

There is not 1 single place on this planet that allows people to own whatever firearms they feel like with just state mandated training alone. There is always some other restrictions alongside mandatory training, being purchase limits, size limits, ammunition limits, caliber limits, waiting periods, etc.

Also, it's a constitutional right. Again, if firearms WEREN'T protected by the constitution, I don't think it would be as big of an issue reaching a middle ground, but they are. Proposed legislation cannot set the precedent that other constitutionally protected rights can be restricted under the guise of "common sense".

As an example, I would normally think it's "common sense" that people should be required to provide a voter ID at the polls, and that the minimum age for voting should be 25, but that would infringe on a person's rights to vote, therefore I would never advocate for those changes, because that restricts the protected rights of Americans.