This sounds like the standard scenario: assailant goes to a firearms-restricted area with an unauthorized gun, shoots people until confronted by somebody who is also armed with a gun, and then the assailant shoots himself to avoid capture. The major differences this time are that the firearms-restricted area was Fort Hood (which had been hit by a thankfully-rare domestic jihadist five years ago), and that the man was a war veteran with untreated mental problems* stemming from his service. I'm not going to get into the politics of it.
I mean, I'd like to. I typed out the word "But" several times. I'm not simply because I know that the people who need to be convinced on this, won't be; and, honestly? They don't get to set policy anyway. Except for maybe the administration, who really need to get busy removing the existing rule that military personnel should default to being disarmed on base. Yes, I know that this rule was established by a Republican administration, but it's a damned stupid rule that needs to be repealed. Because it's not working.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: I've seen people point out that we don't want troops carting around their rifles all day, either, which is a fair point. There is, however, a very long stretch of territory between that and banning firearms completely, particularly when it involves civilians on-base. And, again, the current rules are not working.
*PTSD is a term that is too-easily bandied about these days. Also, as I understand it: sufferers are much more likely to self-harm than they are to harm others.