"That's a statement that deserves examination.

Do high schoolers assess the world and develop ethical standards?
What did the last couple of shooters asses and develop?

If it were known, multiple teachers had weapons, police were routinely in the building, would either the Florida or Texas shootings had happened? "

 They assess the world around them and develop ethical standards.  They do not exclusively develop those standards through the influence or observation of adults, especially today given the constant 24/7 access to other teenagers and associated trends and propaganda.

 It is not common, and typically has not ever been common for teenagers to emulate adult actions or activities as it is part of our pubescent brain to not do those things.  There is tons of research available about the "rebellion" type behaviors teenagers typically exhibit.

 As for whether the last shootings would have occurred if there was armed staff and more armed law enforcement presence there is not a reliable way I know of to know.  I do know that a standard risk-assessment would say yes, and that the process would change as the shooters are adaptive.  When asked the high school students I have interacted with would do things like shoot into busses full of kids, or other gatherings such as sporting events, or go to a mall or concert.

 Arming teachers may have a chance of motivating a shooter to do it elsewhere, but typically where their peers would gather.

assessment was that JOG believes that any student that has a teacher carrying a firearm could ever be anti gun, as it is impossible to convince one otherwise.

You read funny

feel that its more productive to de-motivate shooters than it is to reduce casualties when it comes to schools and students.  

Demotivate?
Can you Demotivate someone who is not identified?
If we know how to Demotivate, do we know what motivates?

And pasting their faces across the news and saying their names over and over is giving them their fifteen minutes..

There's no mystery about WHO did the killing in Florida.
He confessed, and he Is the bad guy.
Now he needs put on his knees on the town square and shot in the back of the head.
That's what I call
Demotivation

Reducing media coverage would be nice, but is not possible without a major revision in media rights, social media and phone

You miss the point.
You think I'm saying
Force people to do what makes sense.
Nobody said FORCE the media to be smart.
When someone covers a shooting and doesn't make the shooter a momentary celebrity AND then don't suffer ratings drops Because of it
Then the Market will show everyone that is a good approach.

You seem to decide whether or not something can work based on whether or not people can be forced to do it.

How do we get media coverage to stop distributing footage of active shooters

I'm sorry
Let me be clear
The Ongoing, constant, repetitive reporting, needs to stop.
The moment it's happening, reports fly.
After THAT, the MEDIA is responsible for making heroes of the idiots.
They need to think about how they report on things.
You seem determined that it
Can't be done better
That the public demands the name and picture of the maniac
And without a rights crushing law
The media will not start being smart.
I'm SUGGESTING what I think would help
Deincentivise shooters.

Do you AGREE that it would be better that way?
I don't care if you can SEE HOW it would ever Be that way.
It's just a question.

 I think its better if there's less media, and social media distribution of active shooters.  I don't know of a way to get that to happen voluntarily.  There's very little risk to reward incentive unless active shooters really step up the game.

 Structurally it could happen, but would be costly in implementation, and would involve removing rights.