You still refuse to address the central point of my position.
Point 1 - Would training in an active shooting setting make you better able to respond appropriately if you ever end up in a real world shooting?
That was the CENTRAL point I addressed.
Point 2 - Do you really want somebody who is not trained firing a gun in your general direction?
No. But your proposal would increase the number of non-trained people. Think about it - what culture will have the most trained people carrying guns?: the gun culture or the only-special-people-are-allowed-to-have-guns culture?
Put yourself and your wife in that Paris theater. A gunman comes in the back and starts shooting. Somebody with a gun in the front who is scared to death pulls their gun and wildly starts shooting. Do you really want to be in the middle of that? Wouldn't you want somebody with some appropriate trading shooting past you?
Heck yeah I'd like someone with more training as opposed to someone with less training. But then again everyone in that theater sure would have preferred somebody, anybody, with a defensive gun as opposed to the slaughter that they got.
And a couple more points can be made. First, there has never been a defensive shooter at a shooting that "wildly starts shooting." They've all, even with little training, showed discretion commensurate with their skill. Even if you can find a case, the times where a non-trained person handled themselves well enough in a shooting to save lives is a very tall stack that your wild-shooters can ever reach.
And secondly, having a gun culture increases the chances that any random person will not only have a gun, but have some training to use it.