Fort Hood. If you’re in the army, you pass through the base at some point in time. And many of us, especially those who have loved ones currently serving or now retired from the armed forces, are still reeling from the news of the most recent attack on Fort Hood.

On April 2, Spc. Ivan Lopez opened fire on other soldiers at Fort Hood, which operates under regulations that prohibit soldiers from bearing arms. Thus, Lopez’s attack on the base was uncontested until the military police could be called in to subdue Lopez. In the meantime, 16 were injured and three soldiers slain. The names of the three soldiers were Sgts. Daniel Ferguson, 39; Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez, 38; and Timothy Owens, 37.

One of the attack’s most disturbing elements is that these men, because of U.S. regulations, had no weapons to defend themselves, and that these precise circumstance also led to the deaths of 13 unarmed soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009. In that year, Nidal Hasan opened fire during the first attack on Fort Hood in what would become the single largest act of terror executed on a United States military base. Hasan’s slaughter of American soldiers was atrociously labeled an act of “workplace violence,” however, rather than an act of terror. As a result, not only were Hasan’s victims powerless to fight back, but those who survived were unable to claim compensation for living through an act of terror.

“Workplace violence” is also the status being given to Lopez’s attack on Fort Hood. Imagining our respect-worthy, well-trained soldiers running for cover because they cannot retaliate. However, I cannot agree that either massacre qualifies as “workplace violence.” Soldiers are trained to handle weapons, and they should be given the respect to carry the weapons they’ve earned the responsibility of bearing. Instead, their weapons are stripped and they are left vulnerable to anyone who, like Lopez, would have the audacity to smuggle illegal weapons for an assault on the base.

Lopez knew he could take advantage of our unarmed soldiers, and he did, but according to Fox News, military leaders are standing firmly beside the policy of forbidding personal firearms on bases. To this extent, I do not disagree; personal firearms can be required to be registered upon entering a military base. But complete disarmament of soldiers or forcing soldiers to leave their weapons in their trucks? Even before these attacks, such absurdity cannot be justified.

No one has more right to argue this point than 2009 Fort Hood attack survivor, retried Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford. Lunsford, who was shot by Hasan seven times and survived, was interviewed by TheBlaze following the April 2 rampage:

“TheBlaze: ‘You were shot in that ‘workplace violence’ … Is there any reason you can think of that’s reasonable that you weren’t allowed to have a gun?

Lunsford: I think that, well I know, had I had a gun that day, Major Hasan would not be at Fort Leavenworth right now.

TheBlaze: So if you’re sitting there at Fort Hood, and this happens a second time, what are you thinking?

Lunsford: I’m thinking that someone needs to wise up. We in the military have a thing that they say, ‘lessons learned’ … if it happened one time, odds are someone’s gonna get brave enough and try it again … How many times are we going to exercise the fact that we are expendable and just let these things happen and in the aftermath say, ‘Well, I’m sorry for your loss?’ That doesn’t cut it because people die. Give us the right to defend ourselves because that’s what we’re trained to do.”

Our troops should be armed. Of all people, how can we not trust our troops to bear arms? Our soldiers’ safety is our priority as much as ours is their priority, and our troops need to be able to protect themselves.

We all know the adage, but maybe it’s time to relearn it: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

Theresa Cooley ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in English.