Hi ATL Dave,
Typically, those with dementia are homebound with caregivers or institutionalized so the effect of a lifetime permits to carry outside of the home probably in the real world has little to no effect statistically speaking.
I'm not sure that's true at all. That's where folks with dementia eventually end up, but dementia isn't generally a thing that appears overnight. There's usually a decline over time. The incident that causes institutionalization or homebound-ness is usually the "last" in a string of issues.
Most people, even in Georgia, do not carry on a regular basis.... This is why I doubt that including training requirements in GA for the permit would ever prove a difference statistically regarding unwise use of firearms with states that do....I am not saying that training cannot reduce an individual's outcomes on safety and obeying the law. It is simply that a selection effect exists where those who are conscientious will seek out the training on their own while those coasting by on the minimum are likely to do so whether a training requirement exists or not.
I think you're mostly right, but that the selection effect is simply at the level of who bothers to go through the (relatively minor) hassle of making a trip to probate court, combined with the already-strong selection effect of limiting the population to those without felony convictions or other disqualifying histories. Like I said, it's a little counterintuitive to me. Not because I think "training" is magic. I think "training" requirements are pretty inherently dumb. I care about competence. I'm much more interested in what people learned than what they sat through. But, like I said, the data suggests that even that isn't really necessary. Turns out the existing selection criteria and biases seem to work very well, and additional hoops would just be additional hoops.