It has literally everything to do with it? The assertion that more training = less shootings is only relevant because there have been many high profile incidents of cops shooting nonviolent individuals. You’re literally exempting all of these high profile - relevant - examples from your analysis.

An analogy:

Person A presents a graph showing that more driving training correlates to safer driving. This is pretty obvious because trained drivers are more prepared to drive under less than ideal circumstances like traffic, rain, etc.

Person B (you) presents a graph showing that in clear weather with no traffic, additional driving instruction doesn’t have much correlation with safer driving. This is obviously true, but erroneously presenting it as evidence that training has no correlation with safety is misleading.

Under ideal circumstances the training doesn’t matter as much. What society cares about is the fringe cases where training actually matters. You’re completely ignoring the important cases and trying to present the boring obvious leftovers as if they’re important.