Yes, one could look at it this way, but also this is only one possibility and after the recent shooting I am not convinced arming schools is the positive outlook that will work or should be the goal.

Comparing Europa and the US, the US has the higher armed populace but the killing rate is also larger while here the crowd is usually not armed but crime is also not prospering. It seems to contradict your interpretation, although there are other factors for sure.

So you would vote for having some guns everywhere (supermarkets, cinemas, kindergardens, classrooms, ...) in order to have protection?

Look, the US is not Europe and Europe is not the US. Your ways and standards would simply not work here. Quite frankly, given your posts and stance, there appears to be nothing that would convince you of anything in regards to firearms.

It's not about having guns everywhere. It's about not taking away rights and adding more restrictions that would do nothing more than ensure people end up as bleating sheep with no chance of defending themselves. Two of the areas with the most violence (Chicago and D.C.) are also two of the areas with the most stringent controls.

It only "seems" to contradict me because you never hear about the times where someone is stopped. It doesn't make for good sound bites, week long+ stories, and the like. Take for example, an attack in the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. The attacker was stopped by an off-duty cop that was armed. You also do not widely hear why the Oregon mall shooter only managed to kill two. That's because an armed civilian drew on him.