Your hypothetical rationality of needing a CCW because of criminal intent demonstrated by the police chief is going to come off very crass and narrow minded. That is not a proper legal precedent either, you are just attempting to make brash jumps between A to B to justify your logic.
Stick to non-accusatory questions relevant to the topic being discussed. Remember that this is a presentation on active shooters. You can stray into political territories, but do so in an assertive way, not an aggressive way.
They will likely mention at some point that active shooter situations are becoming more and more commonplace. Use his own words against him.
"Sir, you yourself said that active shooter scenarios are not just becoming more commonplace and are claiming more and more lives of our citizens. With shootings on the rise, how is this not considered a just reason for an American to not be in justified in his fear of his safety of life".
"You stated that an active shooting can happen any time, and anywhere. My life does not suddenly depreciate the second I am out in public. There is never a time or a place that I am not concerned with my well being. By denying the rights to carry legally outside of my home, this leads me to believe that your concern for my safety does not apply once I've passed my doorstep."
Bring up the SPU shooting, and Jon Meis, the student that took down the shooter.
"During the tragic Seattle Pacific University shooting, a student, Jon Meis, proved that an exceptionally brave citizen can play a pivotal role in stopping anymore innocent lives from being taken. He did so by risking his life for the people around him. He is a hero, and is incredibly lucky to be alive. However, there have been so many other people, in so many other incidents, that placed the lives of those around them above their own in an attempt to stop needless killing. Many of those people are no longer with us. No one asked them to give their lives trying to save others, they did so because that's the kind of people they were. You cannot deny that being allowed to carry the appropriate tools to defend ones life, these people would have had an exponentially greater chance at succeeding and surviving."
These are the kinds of questions you need to ask. Make your points and yourself look good, without painting him as evil. Let him do that to himself for you.
Cite the Peruta case, or better yet, our very own Baker vs Kealoha case. Tell him that this just isn't your opinion on the 2nd amendment, it is the circuit court's as well.
Remember, this isn't so much about directly addressing him. You are speaking and voicing this to the entire group of people listening. Make sound points without coming off as pompous. Winning the hearts and minds of people that would traditionally be either on the fence, or against CCW should be your main goal so that there is more public awareness drummed up.