News-Record.com

Is Davenport's column online? I can't find it.

Found it (thanks, Andy).

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NRSTAFF/801060315

Davenport writes: "Based on FBI statistics, states that issue concealed-carry permits have significantly lower crime rates."

Lower than what?

I'll save Charles the trouble of an answer, since he doesn't seem to like to weigh in on blog discussion of his columns. The correct way to report the relationship between concealed-carry laws and crime rates would be this:

"The violent and property crime rates in some states that don't allow concealed-carry are lower than some of those that do and higher than some that do."

"The violent and property crime rates in some states that don't allow concealed-carry are lower than some of those that do and higher than some that do."

I'm sure in your effort "not" to use a double negative here your point got a little confusing nevertheless I'm sure I know where your coming from. Make no mistake about it I do "not" feel safe in Guilford Co. In this day and age of political correctness and treading on eggs large police departments hands are tied and they try to approach and solve the problem with peaches and cream. Well, the slap on the wrist policies "do not" work. We are talking about violent people here who need to be off the streets and "kissy-face" community action programs "do not" work when it comes to gangs like MS-13, yes people of Guilford Co. there are active MS-13 gangs here, the Latin Kings make no bones about thier presences. These are not poor unfortunate sons and daughters here, we're talking about a hard core gang business. Yes, indeed I do have a gun, and I believe that statistic's will bare me out that where there are carry permits, especially if it is widely known, there is definately less robbery/home invasion crimes. The crooks know they are going to get shot, and they ain't that stupid.

I've lived in Greensboro since 1952 and have always felt safe; however, I must confess that recent violence and robberies have left me feeling somewhat less secure than before. I notice things I didnt' pay attention to before, and am particular where I go and don't go.

Gun ownership is not a solution. Certainly the neighborhood watch group is a positive step, but increased police protection is also necessary. Adequate police resources coupled with rigid training for new police officers is essential. Some of our current police department problems can be erased in the future through enforced discipline and adherence to the police code of ethics. Say what you may, David Wray had it right on this score.

On a more or less regular basis my wife and her girl friends get together for shopping and lunch or an early evening meal - not a one of them will go near Four Seasons (especially after the sun goes down - their concern may have been heightened by recent problems there concerning members of the GPD) - they also seem uneasy with other venues in Greensboro, venues such as Friendly Center. These four women recently trouped to Alamance Crossing and commented that they felt more at ease there - (but I'm guessing this had little to do with their safety and more to do with the many different restaurants they found there) -

Charles Davenport is the best thing to happen to your editorial pages in quite a long time - if your Sunday paper was divided into two sections with one section containing only Mr. Davenport's column and the other section containing everything else and if I was allowed only one of the two sections - I'd choose Mr. Davenport's section each and every time. I'd pay double for just his column and you could keep the rest of the paper -

Gun ownership is not a solution. Certainly the neighborhood watch group is a positive step, but increased police protection is also necessary. Adequate police resources coupled with rigid training for new police officers is essential. Some of our current police department problems can be erased in the future through enforced discipline and adherence to the police code of ethics. Say what you may, David Wray had it right on this score.

Bill............................
You paint a nice picture, and I wish it were true that we can make the streets safer, but that's pie in the sky my friend, as the reality of it all is that there are gangs out there, and they are well entrenched in Greensboro. And they are not only there to commit violent crimes against people, but they are there committing profitable crimes too, that's what keeps them in business, a very lucrative business I might add. You can have the most ethical police dept. in the world, but if they aren't proactive against the gangs then gang related crimes will continue and get worse as time goes on. I've been in the gun industry for years so I'm not a novice when it comes to the use of firearms, I actually shot, many years ago, competition with the Air Force out of Lackland AFB, therefore I feel most comfortable having a weapon to protect myself with. Remember police dept.'s are reactive and you could be in a world of hurt before they can respond to you. Get a firearm, take it to a firing range and be certified by a firearms expert.

After I read Charles Davenport's column, I kept thinking about the Connecticut murders he wrote about, so I read a bit more about them. What I read upset me even more.

I have not been that concerned about being the target of violence because it seems that in the United States, at least, most such acts are committed against people known to the perpetrator. Not fearing anyone I know and not being involved in the drug world, I felt like my family and I probably would not get harmed.

See this link re violent crimes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

But the Connecticut case Davenport cites shows that any family can be targets of violent crme.

When I read stories like this I try to learn from them. What, besides a gun, would have increased the chances of the Connecticut family's survival?

1. They should have locked all the doors of their house. They had left their basement door unlocked, so the attackers walked right in. It's sad to say, but all doors at homes should be locked at all times.

2. A dog would have helped them. Not only would it have alerted the family, but it might have caused the attackers to skip their house. (I read an article recently written by an ex-burglar who said that dogs were deterrents.)

3. They might not have been targeted if they had been alert to being followed. The woman and her daughter had been followed home from the supermarket by the attackers. Maybe my husband and I are paranoid, but if we think someone is following us when we're driving, we will not turn into our drive. We drive around until we lose them.

4. Driving an older or more modest car might have saved them. The family was initially targeted because the criminals were interested in their car, which seemed to signify they had money.

5. An alarm system might have helped. Others in the victims' neighborhood decided to install them after the murder.

In no way am I blaming the victims by listing these preventive steps. I am only trying to point out ways we can act defensively against crime.

I also realized from reading the story that I always am thinking defensively, but that I probably need to become even more proactive. For example, I am thinking I should buy a couple of door braces.

http://selfprotectionproducts.com/dual-function-door-brace-p-654.html

(Does anyone know a store that carries them?)

Elma Sabo

My entire extended family-- hundreds of us-- do most of our shopping and out of the house dining in Alamance County and have done so for several years. Why, because we feel unsafe in Greensboro.

And while I know it isn't a cure for the problem I do often carry a gun just in case I need to treat the symptoms.