Nothing will happen in Baltimore until you address about 20 other things besides the violence -- it is only a side effect of what Baltimore has allowed its inner city to become.

I can't believe that Shiela Dixon thinks closing one gun shop is going to "stop the violence". There are 1000's of guns on the streets and they will be used to commit more crimes.

I don't think that concealed weapon law is going to solve anything. We are talking about a problem in the inner city which occasionally spills out into the county areas.

There are areas that the police are not willing to go because of the violence and we need to address that. Little blue flashing lights and cameras in boxes are not going to save us.

I believe that the city needs to increase its spending on police activity in these areas where there is an apparent conflict of lifestyle.

I wouldn't say everything is fine if it doesn't spill into the counties, but you're not reading what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that if these "innocent" citizens started shooting at the "thugs" trying to rob them, its going to create even more problems and retaliation type attacks on the truly innocent.

What they are doing now is not working and they are pretending it is because we have "only" had 50 or so murders this year, down from 90 or so last year at this time.

I'm as pissed as you are about how this city is handled/governed and something obviously needs to happen to change it.

And I say it is time the citizens fight back. They are the ones being victimized daily, and when they snitch on the criminals they get their houses firebombed. So why not give them a fighting chance?

The criminals are going to terrorize them one way or the other regardless.

Your mindset is exactly what is wrong with Baltimore. You rely on the cops to protect you. Well they will be there to bring out the body bag and take pictures. If a guy comes at you with a gun or knife you have seconds to react, not minutes to wait for the police.

Only in Baltimore will be sit and do nothing while 9 teens beat on a woman. Only in Baltimore will people witness people being shot, robbed, raped, etc and turn away and act like they didn't see a thing.

If the good people of Baltimore want to take their streets back they are gonna have to fight for them.

No, because a police officer is not a citizen, he/she is a public servant and authorized to use deadly forced if a threat is perceived.

Let me say that I am totally with you on the first half of your original comment: stiffer sentences, more police, community activism, parental involvement, etc., etc. Not so much on the second.

Ok, maybe I'm not clear on exactly what we're arguing here. Obviously if someone comes into your home, protect yourself by all means necessary. I have no problem with that.

But your initial comment was about concealed carry, which implies you're for shooting people on the streets. Now if you're going to give people the same training that police officers receive along with that permit, then fine. But my fear is what the ordinary citizen will perceive as a threat when they're walking down the street with a gun on their waistband (or wherever one would carry it).

And here is where I bow out for lunch, as this argument can go on until the year 2027.

Fellow Ctizens:

Guns a problem? Yes, no doubt. Free to defend yourself? Yes, I am all for it. Concealed carry sounds (I emphasize 'sounds') like a good idea, but two things seems to be missing from the above debate: 1) The sudden randomness of so much of the violence and 2) Training for people to handle firearms in situations of sudden, random violence. There is a big difference between fending off an intruder in your house and suddenly being caught in a gun battle on the street. Plus, if a thug doesn't know you are carrying a weapon, it isn't much of a deterrent. He might be surprised once he does decide to attack you, sure. And you might be successful in fending them off. However, it assumes a lot about the competency and confidence of the average citizen to react calmly and properly in such a situation. Since most of us aren't professional gunfighters, soldiers or policemen I doubt that most of us would have the presence of mind to identify the threat swiftly enough to get the advantage and neutralize it precisely. More likely that someone would overreact and start shooting wildly. You ever started swinging at someone who jumped out from behind a door and yelled boo? I did that to my dad once, and he threw his glass of tea into the ceiling and very nearly caught me in the jaw with a right hook!

Even soldiers and cops, with all the firearm training they get, still have to make decisions extremely fast with no real gurarantee of success. I was talking to an acquaintance of mine, a major in the Army, who was stationed in Iraq. Not a 'front line' posting, but more than once he had to be on guard in truck convoys, weapons. He told me once they got stuck in traffic, with lots of people in the vicinity. They were so keyed up (IED's, car bombs, etc.) that he said every one looked like a potential threat. As he was waiting, a man who looked like he had something on him stepped around the corner and was heading right for his truck. They didn't know if he had a bomb on him or not, and in the space of a second, my a