I get that you say you don't want more militarization, but "fixing cops," "getting them to do their jobs," "making them more effective," "getting them to drive into buildings," "being perfect 100% of the time every time," "getting them to ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE," or whatever - on a large nationwide scale with short response times in every small community in the US would require reforms in the direction of more militarization.
Your position is that we can do all of that without more militarization. Ok. How does that happen without more militarization? How does that happen across the US in every small town?
The expectation that we have all the small towns across the US be able to breach against a guy with a semi auto rifle and potential body armor in a short amount of time would require more militarization - more "warrior" training, more armed police, etc.. Uvalde appears to be evidence of that. Decreasing our mass shooting problem through more effective police actions and faster swat response times, etc. - would require more militarization - more training - more armed police, etc.
More militarization as a means of appreciably decreasing mass shooting events is the wrong direction IMO - the right direction lies elsewhere IMO - and that direction mostly lies with mostly with gun reform.