Let soldiers pack heat on post

As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I was brought to tears by the horrific massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. Seeing coverage of my former comrades brutally murdered at my former duty station was almost too much to take. The news that it was allegedly the act of a fellow soldier remains unfathomable.

While stationed there a few years back, we knew were sitting ducks for a terrorist attack and that only the appearance of security kept it from happening. Anyone on the inside, like the alleged gunman in this case, knew he could easily pull off such a massacre.

The military rightly protects stealth bombers and intelligence assets so a successful attack at such a post is highly unlikely. They keep the number of personnel at such facilities lower so tighter security measures can be used without disrupting day to day life. Admitting that publicly at this point isn't giving terrorists a helpful tip – the massacre at Fort Hood gave them a great road map for similar attacks in the future.

What most people don't realize is the huge difference in how individual posts handle security and access to the post itself. To be fair, in most cases it isn't a failing of the administration but instead simple logistics that create an opening for an attack similar to what happened at Fort Hood. The huge number of soldiers and civilians that work on post make it impossible to check every ID and every car.

Looking at the Fort Hood attack in more general terms exposes that it followed the same pattern as nearly every killing spree in America, with the exception of the fact that it occurred on a military installation.

First on the list of similarities is that the victims were in a place where legal concealed carry is prohibited. The soldiers were disarmed in the same manner as the students at Columbine, or the students at Virginia Tech. The sad fact is that regardless of whether you go to a victim zone in a military uniform or dressed in ill-fitting clothes of the average college student, you are at an undue risk because the criminal will be the only one with a gun when the shooting starts.

Other similarities include that in nearly every other attack it took a good guy, or girl, with a gun to stop the alleged gunman, and that in nearly all workplace massacres, the murderer knew his victims were unarmed and therefore easy targets.

Had the two police officers credited with stopping the rampage not arrived in such short order there is no telling how many more heroic Americans could have had their lives snuffed out on the killing fields at Fort Hood.

The media coverage follows the same pattern in nearly every killing spree as well. As usual, a lot of time is being spent on covering why the alleged gunman chose to kill co-workers.

To be honest, I don't think that issue should shape the debate once the full investigation is complete. Despite the evolution of mental health readiness in America, predicting who might go on a murderous rampage is very difficult. For every person that fits the pattern of a spree killer and acts on his or her rage, there are thousands who are simply lost souls in need of help, but are not a threat to anyone.

The real question is why soldiers trained to carry a gun in combat are disarmed while going about their daily business when they are one of the prime targets of terrorism. While nobody wants fully armed soldiers marching down Main Street, USA, allowing them the same right to carry civilians are afforded is morally and legally just.

Leaving any American without a means of self-defense while a spree killer plies his trade is simply wrong, whether the victim is a civilian or soldier.

In states where legal concealed carry is an accepted practice, American service members need to be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense – on post and off – because the global war on terror has changed the risk level they live with each and every day.

The global war on terror has changed the way America fights our wars and has changed the risk level our service members are forced to endure. Letting soldiers have the same rights afforded to civilians when it comes to carrying a concealed handgun is a reform that is well past due.

Reforms to labor laws to allow employees to carry guns for self-defense at work or that force employers to truly care for worker safety are needed in America today so that the next active shooter in a workplace, whether military or civilian, is met with incoming live rounds instead of screaming and cowering workers.

Gerard Valentino is the treasurer of Buckeye Firearms Foundation. His first book, "Valentino Chronicles," is available at Amazon.com.