Found out we're doing a mandatory active-shooter training at work. It'll be "non interactive" which I guess means no fake guns or practice takedowns or whatever they do to scare people. At least one of my coworkers has already expressed adamant opposition to this, so I have at least one ally. I'd be more opposed if I were going to have fake guns pointed at me, but if it's just sitting in a room listening to someone talk, I don't mind being paid to listen to their bullshit. Anyway, beyond what I've said, I don't know much about these trainings, so what are some funny ways I could derail it? Don't hold back
"Has this method, as disseminated by this company, ever been tested in a real incident?"
If so: "How did that go? Can you substantiate that it actually helped things?"
If not: "What reason does someone have to believe this will help? Is there any sort of real empirical backing or are you profiteering off of HR agendas and fearmongering? Do you accept any sort of liability if your method fails to help or even makes things worse? [Obviously not, so] Why should any of us have confidence in this to preserve our lives when you don't even have the confidence in it yourself to accept that liability? Is there any observable difference between your presentation and that of a reasonably competent snakeoil salesman?"
I'm saving this, it can be used for a wide variety of things with some changes
If you do want to save it, I recommend copy/pasting or something because comments can be deleted for many reasons. I try to preserve the useful posts and comments I find off-site on account of that.