In the aftermath of attacks at a military recruiting center and a reserve center, both national and state officials are debating whether military members at those types of facilities should be armed.
Politics aside, we believe trained military personnel deserve to be armed.
This issue has been revived following the back-to-back attacks by a lone gunman who killed five military members at the Naval Reserve facility in Chattanooga, Tenn.
In response, Missouri lawmakers - largely Republicans and including candidates for higher office in 2016 - have called for National Guardsmen to be armed.
Nationally, Gen. Mark Milley, nominated to be the next Army chief of staff, said at a U.S. Senate hearing: "I think under certain conditions on both military installations and ... recruiting stations ... we should seriously consider it. In some cases, I think, it's appropriate."
We're aware of the arguments for and against restrictions on firearms. And we're also aware of the specific reasoning and legal restrictions on the military. Recruiting for the military is designed to be welcoming, not intimidating. In addition, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the federal government from using military forces for domestic law enforcement.
The Washington Post reports that an April 1, 2011, Pentagon directive is the most recent on the subject: "Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed."
However, the newspaper also noted: "It's unclear what the military can do for recruiters. They commonly work out of commercially leased office space, and must adhere to state laws when it comes to carrying weapons in public."
But we also are aware that armed attacks can occur and have occurred anywhere - in shopping malls, restaurants, schools and military facilities.
In the final analysis, a firearm is simply a tool. It is a very efficient and effective tool in hunting, marksmanship and protection. It also is a very dangerous tool, if misused.
Training in proper safety rules, handling and use is essential.
We support school resource officers because those men and women receive career training in the proper use of firearms to serve and protect the public. We have reservations about arming teachers, despite training requirements, because their training, and focus, is education.
Following the recent attacks, armed civilian militia members have been showing up at recruiting centers to protect unarmed recruiters. Despite the civilians' good intentions, they may be less proficient at armed response than the recruiters they are attempting to assist.
An integral part of the training for military personnel involves proper handling and use of weapons.
They are trained to protect our country, at home and abroad. When they are on the job, it seems reasonable to arm them to protect themselves and others against attack.