You asked the question: "So...more guns equals less violence?" Which in context to the post you were responding to was a negative against conceal carry. That is senseless in the context BECAUSE...As I posted, where conceal carry has been allowed gun crime has been reduced by an average of 33%...Not all gun crimes result in murder but all murders resulting from gun crime CAN be reduced with conceal (or open) carry BECAUSE it reduces gun crime overall.
So...to answer your question...YES...more guns (in the proper hands) CAN equal less violence!
Here's the thing: I agree with Underdog that just handing out pistol permits isn't going to cut the number of people being shot. It might help the murder rate, but only on the technical basis that, when the would-be victim shoots back, and kills the would-be murderer, it's not murder but self-defense; the body count, however, remains the same. I also agree that many murders, probably the vast majority of them, are planned out in advance. In those cases, the murderer is just going to take the victim's gun into account in the plan, and charge ahead anyway.
So, no, chances are very good that dropping gun control altogether won't do one thing to reduce gun violence in the City. People that were going to kill people while guns weren't legal are probably still going to do it once guns become legal. The one thing it might do is to eliminate the AUUW charge from any indictment that follows.
Now, gun control is pretty much irrelevant to any of that; obviously, shootings are going on now on the streets of Chicago, and the fact that many of the victims are, in fact, armed, is one reason why drive-by (and bike-by) shootings are so popular. It's not like a blanket ban on public armaments is helping things much, so there's a good argument to be made that it should be repealed. But it should be obvious that an awful lot of people should not carry guns in public: the anxious, the insane, the felons, the people with bad aim, and many more. I can't go along with the popular notion (now put into practice, ineffectually, by the "Constitutional Carry" faction downstate) that letting them pack heat is a good idea or is going to do one iota of good reducing crime. So, let me follow up the question: you mention that the guns should be in the proper hands. Whose hands are those?
You mentioned above that allowing public carry leads to having "armed and trained citizens that are ready, willing and ABLE to LEGALLY shoot criminals as soon as they make their move!" Are you suggesting that some form of control is still needed, to ensure that the armed citizens are, in fact, ready, willing and able? Will they be obligated to learn what moves by the criminal justify shooting? Will they be held to account if they decide that a criminal turning and running away is enough of a move to warrant being shot, or if the "criminal" turns out not to be?