In the wake of shootings in Chattanooga, Tenn., a debate has arisen over arming military personnel at bases and recruiting centers.

A group of Minnesota legislators has proposed relaxing rules on permits for carrying personal weapons for National Guard soldiers. The general in charge of the National Guard says there are more pressing needs to protect his soldiers. And arming personnel is a bad idea for a number of other reasons, he says.

Major Gen. Rick Nash testified in front of the House State Government Finance Committee in July. Among the more pressing concerns, he testified, are untreated chemical dependency for National Guard members; the repercussions of alcohol- and drug-related incidents and accidents; the negative consequences of untreated post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems; sexual assault; and the fact that suicide still claims the lives of more than 20 veterans and service members every day.

“These are my high-priority ‘force protection’ topics, all of which are much more likely to impact your Minnesota National Guard than a terrorist attack,” Nash said.

The Minnesota National Guard operates 65 facilities in 61 communities statewide. There are six additional “storefront” recruiting offices located in strip malls in towns where there are no National Guard armories. Armed security officers are permanently stationed at the air bases in Duluth and Minneapolis.

Pointing out that the primary responsibility for protecting state military facilities lies with civilian law enforcement, Nash said the proposal to allow soldiers to arm themselves could have unintended consequences: unintentional weapons discharges; liability issues from injuries or property damage, or weapons that could be lost or stolen.

“We live and work in a free society, and we have to balance completing our mission throughout Minnesota with the necessity of protecting our service members,” Nash testified. “It is important that we do not overreact.”

Read the full testimony below: