The main complaint against an Obey Creek development seems to be a desire to reduce traffic, but in my opinion it’s the Chapel Hill tradition of animosity to retail development which is a major contributor to Chapel Hill’s traffic problems.

Watch the traffic on U.S. 15-501 throughout Chapel Hill on a heavy shopping day, and a major portion of cars are heading to shop outside of the town limits. If you look at traffic from the point of view of miles driven and time spent in a vehicle, then having retail in town reduces traffic, not increases it.

What keeping retail out of Chapel Hill has done is simply moved businesses out of town, causing people to have to drive farther to shop while sending the tax revenues elsewhere. Yes, there are businesses within the town limits, but, judging by the number of Chapel Hill residents shopping in Durham and Chatham County, these are not meeting the needs of a large portion of its residents. I’m not suggesting we start adding ugly strip malls, but the current strategy of forcing popular stores out of the town limits does not, in fact, reduce traffic.

Michael Czeiszperger

Chapel Hill

Caregivers support

As our population of elders steadily increases, more of us are taking care of our loved ones as they age. Though caregiving can be satisfying and rewarding, it may also exact a tremendous toll on caregivers’ health and well-being.

For over 20 years, Charles House Association has provided compassionate personalized care to elders and respite for their caregiving families through the Charles House Daytime Eldercare Center in Carrboro and the Charles House Eldercare Home in Chapel Hill.

Now Charles House Association and the UNC Division of Geriatric Medicine are sponsoring a new Caregivers’ Support Group. Beginning today, Jan. 23, the group will meet the fourth Wednesday of each month, from 12:30 to 1:30 at the UNC Wellness Center at Meadowmont.

The stress of caregiving is significant. We hope to help caregivers find comfort in being with others who truly understand the issues, frustrations, sorrows, and joys of caregiving.

Paul Klever

Executive director

Charles House

The gun threat

G.E. Randall (CHN, Jan. 16) avers: “You do not have to be an expert to understand that that armed females are much less likely to be raped or killed than their unarmed counterparts.”

I understand what you are saying, Mr./Ms Randall, but before believing it, I’d like some statistical evidence.

I mean the sort of evidence that has shown for 20 years that owning a gun increases your risk of death or injury. For example, this article in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2004 ( bit.ly/f6qBYm):

“Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.”

Mr./Ms. Randall also opines: “The right to bear arms was created so that citizens are able to discourage our government from becoming tyrannical or dictatorial.”

This is patently false. The Second Amendment starts with a clear statement that its purpose is to protect the government, not to aid and abet those who would rebel against it.

Shays’ rebellion sparked the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the stronger federal government outlined in the Constitution. Seeing the rebels’ attempt to loot the Springfield Armory, the last thing on Madison’s mind was providing constitutional means of arming future revolutionaries. He wanted to arm future militias, like those which routed the rebels.

Michael P. Smith

Chapel Hill

The gun threat II

Opponents of gun control argue that the important benefit of owning a hand gun is the protection it affords against the “bad guys.” Studies show this is not the case.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault:

Using data collected in Philadelphia, the study found that “individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45.”

The authors concluded that, “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. ... Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.”

Those who argue for the protective benefit of hand guns believe that their ability at the firing range would transfer to a real-life confrontation. This is a fantasy as shown by The Police Policy Studies Council ( bit.ly/Ucoy70).

Analysis of NYPD firearms discharge reports from 1990 to 2000 shows the overall probability of a the good guy hitting the bad guy in a gunfight was 15 percent. The hit rate was highest for encounters that took place within 0 to 2 yards, 38 percent, but the rate fell off dramatically with distance to 17 percent at 3 to 7 yards.

So it would seem (a) that you are more likely to do yourself harm if you are armed during an assault and (b) that you would be unlikely to harm your attacker.

One implication of these results for public policy is that a program to arm teachers in the classroom would be likely put the teacher at an increased risk of harm while it would be unlikely to provide enhanced protection for their students.

Elliott Mills

Chapel Hill

Our apathetic coma

I find Viv Taylor’s piece entitled “Me and My M-16” profoundly disturbing.

It is clear that Ms. Taylor is unfamiliar with why the Second Amendment was enacted in the first place. To the chagrin of many, I reference one of Jefferson’s many great quotes – “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” This is the fulcrum of the issue. The necessity for an armed citizenry is to safeguard against the potentials for abuse of power.

The rights of the individual is the fundamental point for which the gun debate hinges on. Should the rights of the individual be sacrificed in favor of the so-called well-being of the collective? Those advocating greater powers to the state fail to realize that history consistently proves the corruptive nature of power. There are dangers in the world, a fact of life – government cannot protect you.

The right to bear arms is the most significant detractor against further encroachment of our personal sovereignty. There is no disagreement that Sandy Hook is a tragedy but the inanimate object is not at fault, just as automobiles cannot be outlawed due to countless vehicular deaths. What is most troubling is the American people’s willingness to accept such a notion. Hundreds were killed last year, many children, by drone attacks authorized by this administration which now stand before us, flanked by youth, claiming our liberties should once again be curtailed.

America must awake from its apathetic coma.

Thomas Jackson

Pittsboro

Posthumous honor

The Chapel Hill Police Department has recently learned that fallen Detective Theodore Roosevelt Cole Jr. will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington.

Detective Cole was killed in 1969 when his killer, whom Cole had arrested many times, went to Cole’s home off of Piney Mountain Road and shot him without provocation.

Cole had been promoted in 1969 but was killed prior to his promotional ceremony. He was posthumously promoted to detective at the Orange County Peace Officers Memorial Service in May of 2012. His name was accepted for addition to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which will occur in May of 2013. Representatives of the Chapel Hill Police Honor Guard will attend to participate in honoring a fallen local hero.

While we are deeply saddened by the cost that Detective Cole paid in service to the Chapel Hill community, we are pleased that he will finally take his rightful place among all honored, fallen officers who have given their lives while serving their communities.

Joshua Mecimore

Professional standards/public information sergeant