That is not conclusive, of course, but is highly suggestive. At this stage, I do not think "it would be expensive and could be ineffective" is a valid reason not to try something. Let us bear in mind that the national screening, training and certification requirements I want for guns would not be cheap or perfect either (those are among the popular NRA objections to them, actually.) Partial/total prohibition/confiscation certainly would not. I doubt any cheap but effective new national policy is possible, but SOME kind of new and effective policy is evidently necessary when we cannot go even six months without someone shooting dozens of innocent people.

The point is, the NRA is not urging vigilantism, handing untrained teachers concealed weapons or daring us to pry their guns from their cold dead hands. They have proposed a reasonable new policy that could not help but substantially improve public safety, with trained officers accountable to the public. Attacking that as some kind of violent radicalism is counterproductive. Gun control advocates have for years impatiently demanded the NRA propose/support reasonable policies to improve public safety; condemning them for finally doing so is not only insultingly ungrateful, but discourages them from wasting their time trying in future.