The rural US is very spread out and large, and often slow to travel over washed out dirt roads or worse. If you wanted 5 or 10 minute response time across the continental US you'd have to hire and equip 3 or 4 people per every 5 or 10 miles across the whole US, people who'd 95%+ of their time doing nothing.
I can't see how there's any way gun education in public high schools or similar wouldn't be drastically cheaper. Not that I think they're options that should be viewed as policy substitutes or alternatives.
You have the same problem with fire fighters. If you want a quick response time you need to have trained people that can be deployed quickly in the case of a fire.
The solution is neither to have full time employed 3-4 people every 5 miles, nor to accept multiple hours of response time for someone to drive all the way from the nearest station. Some might think air travel solves it but even that would generally too slow when minutes can be the difference between a managed fire and an out of control fire. Instead what we have is people who get paid to be stand-by and are positioned close enough that if they get a call they will deploy and be at the area within reasonable time, but who otherwise have an regular job like being a farmer. It not optimal but it is distinctly faster compared to the alternative.
This is actually the model used for animal control in rural areas. The person being hired is generally a local hunter (ie, many who are farmers themselves) who gotten some training and hopefully get some compensation when there is call. If a car hits an animal and you need someone to track the wounded animal down, it would most likely be a local hunter.
I am honestly a bit surprised by the attitude in this thread and how this model is not more well known.
I can't see how there's any way gun education in public high schools or similar wouldn't be drastically cheaper. Not that I think they're options that should be viewed as policy substitutes or alternatives.