Last week in print, we ran a pair of stories that look at the rising rates of gun violence in Durham. Thomasi McDonald wrote about Durham district attorney Satana Deberry testifying before Congress that police and criminal justice reform is not the factor driving increased gun violence, as Republican lawmakers argue. And Dair McNinch, in a piece for UNC Media Hub that we republished, took a look at the specter of gun violence as a fact of life for the Bull City’s young people. Our readers had thoughts.

“As someone who lived in Durham I believe that people need opportunities to make enough money to live,” wrote Facebook commenter Kristal Roebuck in response to McNinch’s story. “There needs to be compensation for graduating from high school. There needs to be training during high school so kids can either go directly into a job from high school or they can go directly to college after graduation. Lack of opportunity leads to frustration and leads to violence and crime. I realize there will be people who do not want to compensate kids who graduate from high school. Would you rather pay for them to go to prison? I didn’t think so.”

And in response to McDonald’s story, we received the following comments on Facebook:

“It makes more sense that gun violence is linked to the desperation and hopelessness too many feel,” wrote Rhonda Nottingham.

Commenter Jency Markham says Deberry isn’t tough enough and argues that legal guns themselves aren’t responsible for increased gun violence: “Well maybe if she ever actually prosecuted someone they wouldn’t be eligible to go buy that gun. But are we really going to sit here and make believe that legal guns are responsible for this increase 😅?”

For the web, Jasmine Gallup wrote about the Raleigh City Council’s decision to eliminate parking requirements for new developments. Some Facebook commenters say this is a bad policy choice, but commenter Joseph John Kominkiewicz argues otherwise:

“I’d just like to point out that removing the parking requirements for developments is an extremely good idea, and not a bad thing at all. Cities that do this have found that it creates more usable density, which is what makes a good city. You generally don’t want areas that have each building with a bunch of surface parking next to it because it spreads everything out and generally wastes space. When things are spread out, it costs more to develop public transportation for the area and generally makes it a undesirable place to walk through. There are many recent peer-reviewed urban planning studies that support what the council has decided upon.” 

Support independent local journalism. Join the INDY Press Club to help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle. 

Comment on this story at