Little attention on flowing between the firearm and the LTL force or back again.
Part of the reason might be our legal system. Today there is the after the fact mindset that using less that lethal force, after using lethal force indicates doubt in your mind that lethal force was necessary, and if such doubt exists, then lethal force is not justified.
Reality, of course, is different, but having to face this particular hurdle in court might explain why training "flowing between the firearm and LTL force or back again" is not emphasized.
In a last ditch, worst case situation, your firearm is an impact weapon. That is not heavily pushed today, likely because today's firearms are poor impact weapons, compared to previous generations.
Times have changed. Troops in WWII and through Korea were trained to shoot, and to fight with the rifle in boot camp/basic training. Both ends and the middle if needed. Today, only certain troops get that kind of training, and its not in basic, its done in specialist schools.
in 1975, my bayonet training in basic consisted of a Drill Sgt holding it up, and saying "This is the M7A1 Bayonet! Take a good look! You will not use it!." When asked why, the response was, "The Army, in its wisdom has decided that if you are in bayonet range of the enemy, the odds are very high that
one of you will ammunition, and so we are not going to waste time teaching you the bayonet."
I am also reminded of the story about Pres Roosevelt (TR), and the spike bayonet. Some folks were advocating the spike bayonet, to replace the blade. according to the story, TR took a rifle with a blade bayonet, and in a duel with a Marine guard, cut the spike bayonet off his opponent's rifle with the blade. I don't think we have had a man capable of that in the Oval Office since.
I you think there is a clear need, and a niche for training to "flow" from firearms to edged/impact weapons (and back?) then start a school, and enrich our lives and your wallet.