We had an active shooter video - it has to be institutionally PC and avoid discussing firearms based defense.
It is basically very good advice on alertness, hiding, running, etc. It mentions that you have to fight but the fight scenarios are carefully chosen to be close quarter tackling of the shooter.
Most scenarios also assume that you hear the people dying elsewhere and then can do the above.
It specifically avoids the large lecture room attacks that happen at school shootings.
It is quietly assumed that if you are in the first targeted large room you will die with little chance of effective self-defense.
The reasons against armed self-defense are:
1. General antipathy to guns for political reasons and the belief that by some that they personally are victims - unable to act.
2. Allowing guns might lead to an innocent getting shot. Of course this is bad, but the institutional core reason is that they fear liability if they allow guns.
One person told me that they didn't want to get caught in a crossfire but then they are only in the FIRE from the killer with no chance of being saved.
3. The police might shoot the good guy - but if that happens after 30 are saved that is terrible but a rationally good outcome. It also implies that they are not confident they could act effectively in target recognition. Also, they fear liability in shooting a good guy. Total liability is the god of institutional decision making.
The attitude of the self-defense deniers is to become smug and look at the SD advocates as some kind of gun frenzied nutso.