Also, you seem to attribute liberal attitudes to me that are not indicated in my posts. At no point did I indicate that I think that training is required for gun ownership. I stand on the second amendment. I do think that any individual who takes on the responsibility of gun ownership should also take the time to learn how to use it properly and to keep sharp via practice. I first learned this from my father who was a SA with the FBI in the fifties. The lesson was re-inforced by my HS rifle team and through my 1964 membership in the NRA. It still makes sense to me.
As for training not being worth too much when the shtf, why do the elite units in our armed forces get so much more of it that the standard infantryman? This is a fact. Two weeks ago I spent time with the Battalion Scouts of the EUSA in the JSA in Korea. They get unlimited range time on a weekly basis. They made the point that back in the States they would be lucky to get monthly range time. It would be more like every six months.
The point of training is to make certain actions second nature, actions like checking to see if a safety is on or if a round is chambered. This is true in any non-instinct endeavor. Tiger Woods trains longer and harder than anyone else on the tour just so he doesn't have to think about the basics. Courage is crucial and that can't be taught. You are right about that. But, every Law Enforcement and Military group I have encountered or studied knows that getting the recruit to that second-nature point counts as much..."the training takes over".
As for your hunting analogy, you don't hunt at night, in your home and the game has potential fatal results for just one player.
Bottom line, I am absolutely certain that your heart is in the right place but I firmly believe that the best advise for someone like Clemenza is to get as much training as you can and keep it simple.
Many years ago Skeeter Skelton wrote a good story about the gun fighters of the old West. He gave a pretty good biography of several including John Wesley Hardin, (Well I have a mental block and can't think of the others right now).
The point Skeeter made was that none of them were trained shooters and none of them could have competed with many modern competitors. Skeeter then hazarded an opinion which I agree with totally. He said if any of todays hotshots were to be transported back to the days of the old West, and were the mortal enemies of say, Hardin, then Skeeter believed that before long the modern experts would be dead.
When you say that the modern special forces are heavily trained, you are obviously correct. One of the reasons for the heavy training is to elimate the weak ones.
Here is my point in a nushell. Take all the ones who cannot make it in say, the Rangers and give them intensive training for two years. Then take the ones who would not have washed out and give them only minimal training.
Then take the two groups and pit them against each other. IMO the minimally trained cream of the crop would wipe the floor with the highly trained chaff.