Military veterans and former commanders are speaking out against calls to allow more access to guns on military bases in reaction to Wednesday's deadly shooting at Fort Hood.

In the wake of the shooting that left four dead, including the gunman, several conservative media figures are urging the Pentagon to change its policy that typically bars the carrying of concealed weapons or side arms by soldiers who are not involved in law-enforcement activities.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin asked “how many more deaths” it will take before service members are “allowed to have weapons.” TownHall.com editor and Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich tweeted, “Should we stop giving soldiers guns? Oh wait, already did that. Result? mass shootings in gun free, defenseless military bases.” Fox News host Martha MacCallum suggested that it's “highly possible” lives could have been saved at Fort Hood “if other people had been armed on that base.”

But those who have commanded military bases and served as officers disagree, citing the concerns about increased violence and potential danger to innocent bystanders.

“My own personal feeling is that I would be against that. I don't think that's an appropriate solution to what we have seen at Fort Hood,” said retired Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson, a 39-year Army veteran and West Point graduate. “This has to be very, very carefully thought out. The implications of what that would result in. There are other means by which you can enhance security on installations than arming everyone -- increasing security patrols, let's take a look at all the options.”

He added that a broader access policy might not have stopped the Fort Hood shooter: “The person who shot the folks down there would have been able to have the weapon. You could make the case they would have gotten him; maybe yes, maybe no. But then you have a Wild West situation there. It is just not the right thing to do.”

Paul Eaton, a retired Army major general and former commander at Fort Benning, Ga., stressed that anyone on military bases who carries weapons, such as military police, receives extra training.

“We train our military police to a higher standard, they are trained first as infantry and then additional training in law enforcement and how to handle situations like a law enforcement officer,” he said.

Asked about the idea of expanding weapons access to all soldiers and even allowing concealed weapons on bases, Eaton stated, “I am not in favor of that.”

Jamie Barnett, a former Navy rear admiral and 32-year veteran, called more weapons “a bad idea.”

“We already have lots of weapons on base,” he said in an interview. “We have great law enforcement personnel, we have great military personal who can protect us. It seems to me that the real focus should be on people who have some type of mental or emotional problem, we should concentrate on that.”

Asked what the negative impact of more weapons access would be, Barnett stated, “It seems like it would interfere with the legitimate law enforcement function. It does not increase safety. The more weapons you have, the more potential to have them stolen, get out of hand.”

Jon Soltz, chairman at VoteVets.org and an Iraq War veteran, said adding weapons to military personnel on bases would add danger. 

“More weapons out there in the hands of people who at this point shouldn't have one is not a solution. It is a safety issue,” he said in an interview. “We have police officers on military installations, that is their whole job.”

Joe Davis, a retired Air Force major who is now the public affairs director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said increasing the weapons only increases the danger.

“How would it make it safer?” he asked via phone. “If you work in an office building and something bad happens in that office building, if you start arming everyone in that office building, are you safer? We have trained security to provide those services. If you arm everybody and someone starts shooting, and someone just happens on to the scene, how can they tell who is the good guy and the bad guy?”