I think that on this forum and at least one other I frequent that there is a sort of glamorization of cowardice going on. I don't mean to cast aspersions on any of my fellow posters in particular, but I detect a certain sentiment from a certain base of posters that anyone who would prefer to engage an active shooter rather than run for the hills is a bad person and perhaps even a danger to themselves and others. It sort of seems like some among us are attempting to create a groupthink where anyone who isn't completely paralyzed by fear is a chest-beating savage stirring for conflict. It's quite a strange wedge to see driven amongst members of the firearm community by staff here and at another popular green & brown forum I frequent, and I think it's a completely false dichotomy. It's absolutely possible to be interested in the defense of yourself and also the body politic but not be a danger to anyone. I think there are grave philosophical implications when one suggests that a member of the public should not engage in the defense of said public as matter of course, or alternatively that a member of the public is not qualified to engage in the defense the public.
It's not a binary choice. Some responses are personally wise, but not heroic. Some options are heroic and tactically stupid. Others may be personally sound and heroic. ADDITIONALLY, whether certain responses fit any of these descriptions depends on the situation faced and capabilities of the person responding.
You (and everyone else) has the right to life. It is not unwise to remove yourself from a dangerous situation. In fact, from a generalized perspective, that is your best bet for survival. The more people who optimize their survival chances, the lower the casualty count may be.
Confronting an armed criminal, especially one actively trying to murder as many people as they can is incredibly dangerous. I applaud all those willing to do so (and mourn many who did at the cost of their lives). It can be done successfully, and even a failed attempt may buy time for others to evacuate and live. It is the heroic thing, but making that decision is a personal one for the average citizen. I won't criticize people who decide to remove themselves from the situation--they have a right to live.
My decision factors are situationally dependent. If I do not know the attacker's location, my plan is to evacuate as many people as possible. That keeps a potentially large group of would-be victims safe. It is tactically sound, as well. If I should know the attacker's location AND have an opportunity for a counter-attack, I intend to make it. However, I realize that in any "even fight" I will likely take a bullet. Some of my criteria for counter-attacking are tactical advantage or a lack of other options!
I suggest everyone consider their own capabilities and moral decision-making in order to "pre-game" those situations where they will counter-attack vs. evacuate.
Fight or Flight decisions can factor in many things: your own right to life, duty to protect family/friends, duty to protect society in general, care-giving obligations, tactical advantage/disadvantage, individual capabilities, etc.