Freebase Dali

I haven't read the NRA's statement, as I generally don't give a sh*t about them and don't think they're necessary at all, nor do I feel like they represent me or my rights any more than the constitution does. But, if I step aside from politics for a moment and just use logic alone, I would be glad to make some (admitted) assumptions about what I recommended.

First.
If we take the Sandy Hook scenario into account and use it as our basis for this: I think that if there was a trained, armed individual or two at the school at the time of the shooting, there would have been a far higher probability of lives being saved. I'm basing this arbitrary number (represented by the word "far", and assuming it's a significantly greater value than the comparison) on the fact that with NO trained, armed individuals located at the school, the likelihood of retaliation and neutralization of the shooter is effectively 0% until the perpetrator either kills himself or is killed by the first responding armed unit.

Using basic analytical skill, I can arrive at the assumption that an armed guard or two would have been preferable to none, even if solely based on the probabilities.
Considering the value of innocent life over monetary concerns, I would fight in the corner of the former, rather than the latter.

Let me know if I lost you guys so far.

Now, if we wanted to address the feasibility of cost after having already concluded that innocent human life was more important, but would like to make this as financially and economically as efficient as possible, we could possibly stop thinking solely in terms of public sector funding, and think about opportunities to provide armed security in places we would not like our innocent citizens to be gunned down in mass quantities, versus how many pieces of paper it's costing us.

I know this sounds crazy, but let's just key in on a demographic sector that might benefit from a job. Ex military veterans coming out of infantry positions that have little else to offer in terms of experience than migrating to private security (wow! perfect fit! And a lot of these guys are jobless right now!) or public law enforcement (Oh sh*t! Another great skill set!).
Another demographic is ex-cops.
Another is people that need jobs in general.
What if... and this is totally a what if... I know this is going to sound extra crazy, but what if we lobby for cutting government spending in other, less important programs and create a job market for a much needed commodity, which is protecting our schools from violent criminals?
These would be individuals being paid money that is ultimately flowing back into the economy at a consumer level, and being able to put food on his family's table while protecting the lives of your families as they go to school.

I understand that this entire concept probably "sounds stupid" or something, but I dunno. Maybe having employed security at schools might "seem crazy because we're totally not used to guys with guns being at your kid's kindergarten class" and it seems all "nazi-like" and we're "totally not used to that" and "it's weird", and maybe that's the f*cking problem.
Maybe the next Adam Lanza won't be so keen to drop in on a bunch of defenseless, unguarded children if they know trained, armed individuals will be there to intercept them. Maybe we can actually think about the benefits to human life this might have, instead of being superficially offended by the presence of people with "scary guns all Gestapo-like that I'm conditioned to be opposed to because I saw this go bad in movies". (just throwing probable positions out there)

You would think this shouldn't be an outrageous concept. After all, we've all warmed up nicely to pilots having guns on airplanes, and air marshals as well. I don't think it would be outlandish to provide at least some measure of security at public schools as well (Something more than Adam Lanza obviously got around), instead of the current law which is basically "law abiding citizens must not bring weapons to school. But if you decide to break the law, we're totally gonna have cops on your ass after you've killed a lot of people".

Well, I guess it's just tough sh*t for the families of the children that died. It's not like stricter gun laws are going to change the level of security when there, by extension, can be no one to counteract those that don't follow such laws (until all the victims are already victims, as so obviously portrayed at Sandy Hook)

I dunno.
If people can't see the logic in this, then I don't know what to say. I like to think of myself as at least a half-way intelligent person, but if I'm missing something completely glaring, please do let me know.