i don't know if it's just a certain kind of mentality that can't escape this sort of absorbing foray into micromanagement, but for me, it was basically an experience of "just one more turn"... i look down, the sun is setting... i look up, and the sun is coming up
how the hell did that happen?
i had to destroy the cd the game came on, if i wanted to keep a relationship and a job
Many more people die from heart attacks and railroad accidents each year. Why the big fuss over fascism?"
you are dealing with ideology, with human beings, not nameless faceless statistics or uncontrollable events like lightning strikes or shark attacks
as such, you pay attention to people who clearly state their goals and then clearly go about executing their goals
and if you are paying attention to what a group like al qaeda wants, you better believe its a big issue
because when it comes to human intent and human action, we are talking about self-fulfilling prophecy: the more they succeed, the more they try, and the more followers they get. its emergent phenomena, not natural phenomena
if you understood exactly what you are dealing with here, you would understand exaclty how dangerous and potent the ideology behind terrorism really is
for example, there are people out there who imagine themselves better than the common man according to arbitrary standards
and they believe that this gives them the rationale to not trust the common man, that the common man is not deserving of the means to decide his own fate
its ok though, these elitists with anti-democratic instincts are in power in various countries around the world
perhaps you'd like to move there, asshole
you have quite a list of losers you've assembled there
please add your ivory tower sense of superiority to that list
"so we feed the bugs the solar cell stuff man, and they just like use it make better solar cells. whoa"
and yet it works. amazing
all hail marijuana science
next up from stoned science: "dude, did you ever look at your hand, no, i mean really look at it?: curing phantom limb symptoms by really looking at your hand"
you're responding to some sort of preprogrammed mirage that exists inside your head that bears no relation to my words and my position. i will not respond to what you wrote, because you did not respond to what i wrote
what you just wrote is in reply to someone who doesn't exist anywhere in my words
the gun is used in regimes right now today to keep down citizens agitating for more freedoms
that the second amendment somehow keeps us free from fascism has to be the biggest lie there is. in fact, if we were to ever fall to fascism, it would be via those appealing to will to power through visceral force of the gun. our modern freedoms are crushed by mustering and agitating fools in the hinterlands with their guns, not depending on them for some sort of continuing protection. poppycock
modern rights and freedoms only exist in the context of civil society. nothing civil ever happens at the end of a gun or a sword. you have some strange notions indeed if you think anything having to do with visceral force is anything but an enemy of modern rights and freedoms
oh certainly guns are useful in keeping us free in outright war with competing ideologies from foreign geopolitical entities. but that's battlefield issues, not domestic policy
a gun or a sword or any implement of visceral force is a replacement for your sense of reason and goodwill faith towards respecting the notion of freedom in domestic, civil exchanges. in fact, when a gun is used in any civil, domestic setting, any notion of freedom has long since expired in that context
the gun protects you from nothing. it is a false vain crutch. use your mind alone, or fail utterly to perceive what the notion of freedom even is
anyone who has ever tried to debate gun control realizes there are a lot of "facts" out there that are nothing but skewed propaganda, both for and against gun control. come to me with logic and reason, or don't come to me at all. "i have ten bullshit links and you have nine bullshit links! i win!" zzz
allow the battle bullshit propaganda "facts" to commence:
"Live with it, gun owners say, and if our murder rate is three times that of the United Kingdom and Canada, five times that of Germany, that's the deal. The price. For consolation, I guess, there is the fact that the homicide rate has been flat for some time, down from the highs of the 1980s. Still, nearly 17,000 Americans are murdered each year -- about 70 percent by guns -- and 594,276 lost their lives betweens 1976 and 2005."
the rules of the game are: you show me a link to some insurmountable "facts", and then i reply with a link to some insurmoutnable "facts", and we regurgitate "facts" until oblivion
or: how about you approach we with some logic and reason?
such as: if there are less force multipliers lying around in easy reach, less senseless deaths occur
the recent spree shootings in the last week in the usa were almost all, if not completely all, committed with legally obtained guns
"most gun crime is committed by people who have already illegally obtained a gun"
i doubt that "fact", but for the sake of logical argument, lets assume for the moment that every single gun used in every single shooting spree and every single criminal act were obtained 100% illegally
guess what: if legal guns were more strictly controlled, there would be even less illegal gun circulation in circulation as well. just because there are less guns in general, less legal guns to go illegal. you are never ever going to stop the illegal flow of guns, no matter what. but every inch you tighten the vise on gun trade, it makes it that much harder for someone to get a gun, via all legal and illegal channels. more tightly controlling guns will mean less legal and illegal yahoos will own guns. simple fact
you tighten gun control, you get less sensless deaths. meanwhile, if your interest in owning a gun is truly virtuous, you will have to jump through more hoops to get your gun, but if you are a person who truly understands the connection between rights and responsibilities, you will have no problem with the increased red tape, in the interest of less guns on the street, and therefore less senselss deaths with such a potent force multiplier in easy reach
less guns in circulation=less gun usage, in heroic situations, and in criminal situations
true or false?
less gun usage=less senseless deaths, regardless of the virtue or lack therof of the person using the gun
true or false?
therefore, guns should be strictly controlled, in the name of reducing senseless deaths
please, dismantle the logic there. i welcome you to disproving anything above
let petty crime climb if the crime is gunless and therefore means less deaths. a trade off i am 100% happy with. more swords? more knives? 100% fine: knives are force multiplier of a much smaller degree than a gun, therefore, a knife has a much smaller chance of resulting in death
adhering to the spirit of the law, rather than their fundamentalist shrill interpretation of laws that only work in a previous technological era
arriving at a superior battlefront against government abuse in the here and now, rahter than becoming irrelevant to the fight against government abuse by adhering to a set of standards that aren't ideologically dead, just rendered obsolete due to simple neutral technological change
now if only we can get the 10,000 other blind slashbots out to mod this thread into oblivion to listen to some reason on this subject matter
"you can't compare the US and the UK. Different cultures, different levels of violence"
i can talk about human behavior. cultural differences do not override basic truths of all human behavior. rape is rape. murder is murder. a sword is a sword. a gun is a gun. about which simple facts can be understood, in any time period, in any culture
"It's also worth noting that the UK's level of violence -- both with and without guns -- has increased significantly since the UK's handgun ban"
how many broken bones is worth one death?
"Do you have any evidence that it would have increased more without the ban?"
simple human violence is a constant. its when you attach force multipliers (guns), that you get senseless deaths. that's the whole point. stay on topic
"Only if muggings never resulted in death, which isn't true as I'm sure you're well aware"
absolutely. and when there are less guns involved, there is less death. a strict control on guns means both victims and perps will have less guns. thats the whole point. some criminals will still have guns, some victims will too. but apart from the rare sociopaths, the criminal just wants your money, not your life. so let us have 10,000 more muggings if it means 10 less deaths. works for me. why not you?
"A person with a "grasp on reason or logical thinking" would want to see actual numbers from studies, rather than just guessing."
a person who has ever spent any time aruging about gun control realizes that any fact or figure can be skewed in the most bullshit of propagandistic ways, both for or against gun control. come to me with logic and reason, and leave the battle of the propaganda-addled "studies" out of it. lies, damn lies, and statistics. i have ten links to bullshit "studies" and you have nine links to bullshit "studies"! i win! zzz
"The right of self-defense is a crucial part of the right to life. The 80 year-old man whose door is broken down by multiple 18 year-old assailants can preserve his right to life with a gun. Without it, he has no chance."
thats a wonderful story. now tell me the ten other stories in which guns were used to kill innocents
the whole point is: guns are a force multiplier. make stricter laws, less random yahoos will have guns, less senseless deaths occur. all of the heroic usaes of guns are outwieghed by the senseless uses. so yes, by controlling guns, you decrease historic usage, but you also decrease a much larger amount of senseless usage. so you result in much less senseless death int he world. thats ther whole point, and it overrides all of the ancillary arguments your mind seems to be stuck on
the committed assholes will always get guns, but we're talking about the logical correlation: stricter laws on material xyz means less xyz in general circulation, regardless of validity of the control of xyz. if guns=xyz, then we have simply less senseless deaths. the logic is so brilliant and obvious, i don't know why or how the propaganda works in your mind that you can't see the blindingly obvious on the subject matter
laws are not computer programs that the slightest deviation from leads to an outright crash
there is plenty of cognitive dissonance between the laws on the books and actions in good faith which are implicitly allowed due to the realization of everyone involved that the law involves complex notions
this is true of any law, by the way, and i'm not speaking only about the subject at hand here
i'm glad you understand the number of avenues of communication are too fluid to get a warrant for a single line beforehand
i'm glad you understand the number of avenues of communication are too fluid to get a warrant for a single individual beforehand
now you put forth the notion of getting a warrant for specific information beforehand
this is wonderful, i like this idea
but you do realize that since this information is always buried in a bunch of noise. that to get this information you are going to invariably catch a whole bunch of other unrelated information in the process, right? you sort of have to put out a drag net, and then pick nuggets out of the sea
but your observation does have validity in that in review, later, this "warrant for information" sets a benchmark against which common sense prudent drag net operations are properly judged, and the information distilled from those dragnets can be seen as germaine or not to the goal at hand
so yes, i agree with you: warrant for informations beforehand, in order to establish a benchmark against which later transparent review can establish good faith in subsequent actions
with the caveat that you understand that a lot of extra noise is captured along with the information being sought (and this of course is expected to be expunged)
for the one metric we care about here in this analogy: less people drank
if you strictly control guns, less people will get them. ie, less senseless deaths will occur. this logic is flawless, i don't see how or why you would contest this
making something illegal or strictly controlly it doesn't stop anyone COMMITTED from getting that thing. but it does stop the casual yahoo. and that's the bulk of what we are talking about here
strict laws most definitely reduces the prevalency of that illicit material. for good reason or not. with marijuana, the limitation is not very morally valid. but the whole idea behind limiting guns is to limit senseless deaths: morally valid
you in fact understand this:
"Yes, it's obvious that if there were no guns they would be no gun crime. There would be other types of violent crime though, human nature being what is is. There would be 40k less deaths a year from cars if there were no cars, so we should make it really hard to get those too."
no one can pick up a knife and kill 13 people in a classroom in under a minute. the issue is that guns are a force multiplier. human violence will never go away, but we can easily reduce the number of force multiplies around. you wont stop all spree shootings, as germany with strict gun laws demonstrates. and you wont stop the truly evil committed criminals from getting guns. but you WILL stop the casual yahoos. you will stop the truly deranged who wouldn't pass review. you would remove the bulk of senseless deaths
less guns means less senseless killings. i dont understand why you cant see that this observation trumps every other observation you make or think you can make on the topic. less guns=less senseless deaths is a valid and easily reachable goal, and it trumps all other topics in play here. is there any human right that you can point out to me that trumps the human right to life?
in fact i believe that petty criminality will go up with less gun ownership. guns do deter petty crime. with less guns, there will be more muggings, for example
so what's the going rate on equivalency rate of muggings to senseless deaths? 1,000 muggings a life? this is absurd moral equivalency, but it works for me temporarily to make this point: if the usa has 10x less senseless deaths due to guns every year, with strict gun control laws, then i can easily put up with a 10,000x increase in petty crimes. why can't you?
Slashdot Mirror
you know that video game addiction exists
i don't know if it's just a certain kind of mentality that can't escape this sort of absorbing foray into micromanagement, but for me, it was basically an experience of "just one more turn"... i look down, the sun is setting... i look up, and the sun is coming up
how the hell did that happen?
i had to destroy the cd the game came on, if i wanted to keep a relationship and a job
"Is fascism such a big issue?
Many more people die from heart attacks and railroad accidents each year. Why the big fuss over fascism?"
you are dealing with ideology, with human beings, not nameless faceless statistics or uncontrollable events like lightning strikes or shark attacks
as such, you pay attention to people who clearly state their goals and then clearly go about executing their goals
and if you are paying attention to what a group like al qaeda wants, you better believe its a big issue
because when it comes to human intent and human action, we are talking about self-fulfilling prophecy: the more they succeed, the more they try, and the more followers they get. its emergent phenomena, not natural phenomena
if you understood exactly what you are dealing with here, you would understand exaclty how dangerous and potent the ideology behind terrorism really is
everybody has religion
asking for the end of ideological conflict is basically asking for mastery by one ideology. in a way, tha tsong is the ultimate fascist paean
no, i'd rather prefer the constant ideological warfare, then the enforced view of one ideology
and no, there's no such thing as no ideology. as long as human beings have:
1. free rights
2. a thinking mind
there will be ideology, and there will be conflict, and it will get violent at times
this is the status quo of being in human society. get used to it
trusts democracy, bad punctuation
exhibitB:elitist, antidemocratic
you tell me who is superior
xoxoxoxox
for example, there are people out there who imagine themselves better than the common man according to arbitrary standards
and they believe that this gives them the rationale to not trust the common man, that the common man is not deserving of the means to decide his own fate
its ok though, these elitists with anti-democratic instincts are in power in various countries around the world
perhaps you'd like to move there, asshole
you have quite a list of losers you've assembled there
please add your ivory tower sense of superiority to that list
thanks
you have to implement all these schemes from orbit
its the only way to be sure
someone cooked up while being stoned
"so we feed the bugs the solar cell stuff man, and they just like use it make better solar cells. whoa"
and yet it works. amazing
all hail marijuana science
next up from stoned science: "dude, did you ever look at your hand, no, i mean really look at it?: curing phantom limb symptoms by really looking at your hand"
you didn't listen to a single thing i said
you're responding to some sort of preprogrammed mirage that exists inside your head that bears no relation to my words and my position. i will not respond to what you wrote, because you did not respond to what i wrote
what you just wrote is in reply to someone who doesn't exist anywhere in my words
stop
read
think
then reply
it is you who have been propagandized so thoroughly that you can't tell simple obvious truth:
if something is harder to acquire, less people get it
i await your absurd refutation of this obvious logic
i guess if 1+1=1 must be true in order to retain your opinion, so it will be
its sad how otherwise rational men will retain a deathgrip on illogic out of stubbornness and a misplaced passion in a failed ideology
if something is harder to acquire, less people will get it
jefferson
hobbes
etc.
these are why we live with modern freedoms
not the gun
the gun is used in regimes right now today to keep down citizens agitating for more freedoms
that the second amendment somehow keeps us free from fascism has to be the biggest lie there is. in fact, if we were to ever fall to fascism, it would be via those appealing to will to power through visceral force of the gun. our modern freedoms are crushed by mustering and agitating fools in the hinterlands with their guns, not depending on them for some sort of continuing protection. poppycock
modern rights and freedoms only exist in the context of civil society. nothing civil ever happens at the end of a gun or a sword. you have some strange notions indeed if you think anything having to do with visceral force is anything but an enemy of modern rights and freedoms
oh certainly guns are useful in keeping us free in outright war with competing ideologies from foreign geopolitical entities. but that's battlefield issues, not domestic policy
a gun or a sword or any implement of visceral force is a replacement for your sense of reason and goodwill faith towards respecting the notion of freedom in domestic, civil exchanges. in fact, when a gun is used in any civil, domestic setting, any notion of freedom has long since expired in that context
the gun protects you from nothing. it is a false vain crutch. use your mind alone, or fail utterly to perceive what the notion of freedom even is
i'll take your avoidance of the topic and the personal attack as a tacit admission that you've lost the argument
next time, be intellectually honest and admit when you are wrong
have a better one
thanks for the snake oil links form outright ideologically skewed sources and outright propaganda from random cranks
how's this, an actual fucking scholarly article?:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2006862
"It should come as no surprise that accurate data on alcohol consumption during Prohibition do not exist."
so there's no data for you to depend on. no REAL data, as opposed to cranks and propaganda which you have linked me to so far
so how about using some reason and logic with me instead? is that within the realm of your abilities?
here, i'll try:
if something is harder to get, less people will get it
you'll forgive me, i'm really going way out on a limb with that assertion, i know
(snicker)
are not limited and licensed and monitored enough
thats the point
and this has nothing to do with sunspots
its slashdot, not an academic conference
but we're all going to get the -1 offtopic boot anyways
as if going to slashdot in the first place isn't offtopic ;-P
when you cite such ideologically neutral sources as the fucking CATO institute
pffft
propaganda anyone?
here's something more neutral: fucking logic
if something is harder to get, less people get it
i know, i'm really a radical thinker here
zzz
that can't be enforced?
mevermind the ideological argument about whether it SHOULD be enforced
anyone who has ever tried to debate gun control realizes there are a lot of "facts" out there that are nothing but skewed propaganda, both for and against gun control. come to me with logic and reason, or don't come to me at all. "i have ten bullshit links and you have nine bullshit links! i win!" zzz
allow the battle bullshit propaganda "facts" to commence:
"Live with it, gun owners say, and if our murder rate is three times that of the United Kingdom and Canada, five times that of Germany, that's the deal. The price. For consolation, I guess, there is the fact that the homicide rate has been flat for some time, down from the highs of the 1980s. Still, nearly 17,000 Americans are murdered each year -- about 70 percent by guns -- and 594,276 lost their lives betweens 1976 and 2005."
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/the-guns-of-spring/?ref=opinion
ok, now its your turn
the rules of the game are: you show me a link to some insurmountable "facts", and then i reply with a link to some insurmoutnable "facts", and we regurgitate "facts" until oblivion
or: how about you approach we with some logic and reason?
such as: if there are less force multipliers lying around in easy reach, less senseless deaths occur
your move
i await my "facts"
zzz
the recent spree shootings in the last week in the usa were almost all, if not completely all, committed with legally obtained guns
"most gun crime is committed by people who have already illegally obtained a gun"
i doubt that "fact", but for the sake of logical argument, lets assume for the moment that every single gun used in every single shooting spree and every single criminal act were obtained 100% illegally
guess what: if legal guns were more strictly controlled, there would be even less illegal gun circulation in circulation as well. just because there are less guns in general, less legal guns to go illegal. you are never ever going to stop the illegal flow of guns, no matter what. but every inch you tighten the vise on gun trade, it makes it that much harder for someone to get a gun, via all legal and illegal channels. more tightly controlling guns will mean less legal and illegal yahoos will own guns. simple fact
you tighten gun control, you get less sensless deaths. meanwhile, if your interest in owning a gun is truly virtuous, you will have to jump through more hoops to get your gun, but if you are a person who truly understands the connection between rights and responsibilities, you will have no problem with the increased red tape, in the interest of less guns on the street, and therefore less senselss deaths with such a potent force multiplier in easy reach
stricter control of guns=less guns in circulation
true or false?
less guns in circulation=less gun usage, in heroic situations, and in criminal situations
true or false?
less gun usage=less senseless deaths, regardless of the virtue or lack therof of the person using the gun
true or false?
therefore, guns should be strictly controlled, in the name of reducing senseless deaths
please, dismantle the logic there. i welcome you to disproving anything above
let petty crime climb if the crime is gunless and therefore means less deaths. a trade off i am 100% happy with. more swords? more knives? 100% fine: knives are force multiplier of a much smaller degree than a gun, therefore, a knife has a much smaller chance of resulting in death
adhering to the spirit of the law, rather than their fundamentalist shrill interpretation of laws that only work in a previous technological era
arriving at a superior battlefront against government abuse in the here and now, rahter than becoming irrelevant to the fight against government abuse by adhering to a set of standards that aren't ideologically dead, just rendered obsolete due to simple neutral technological change
now if only we can get the 10,000 other blind slashbots out to mod this thread into oblivion to listen to some reason on this subject matter
if we have stricter laws, you'll still get one if your intent truly is as virtuous as you say
meanwhile, all the casual yahoos with guns goes away
so what's the problem?
you can't imagine that the reasons people pick up guns aren't always virtuous?
"you can't compare the US and the UK. Different cultures, different levels of violence"
i can talk about human behavior. cultural differences do not override basic truths of all human behavior. rape is rape. murder is murder. a sword is a sword. a gun is a gun. about which simple facts can be understood, in any time period, in any culture
"It's also worth noting that the UK's level of violence -- both with and without guns -- has increased significantly since the UK's handgun ban"
how many broken bones is worth one death?
"Do you have any evidence that it would have increased more without the ban?"
simple human violence is a constant. its when you attach force multipliers (guns), that you get senseless deaths. that's the whole point. stay on topic
"Only if muggings never resulted in death, which isn't true as I'm sure you're well aware"
absolutely. and when there are less guns involved, there is less death. a strict control on guns means both victims and perps will have less guns. thats the whole point. some criminals will still have guns, some victims will too. but apart from the rare sociopaths, the criminal just wants your money, not your life. so let us have 10,000 more muggings if it means 10 less deaths. works for me. why not you?
"A person with a "grasp on reason or logical thinking" would want to see actual numbers from studies, rather than just guessing."
a person who has ever spent any time aruging about gun control realizes that any fact or figure can be skewed in the most bullshit of propagandistic ways, both for or against gun control. come to me with logic and reason, and leave the battle of the propaganda-addled "studies" out of it. lies, damn lies, and statistics. i have ten links to bullshit "studies" and you have nine links to bullshit "studies"! i win! zzz
"The right of self-defense is a crucial part of the right to life. The 80 year-old man whose door is broken down by multiple 18 year-old assailants can preserve his right to life with a gun. Without it, he has no chance."
thats a wonderful story. now tell me the ten other stories in which guns were used to kill innocents
the whole point is: guns are a force multiplier. make stricter laws, less random yahoos will have guns, less senseless deaths occur. all of the heroic usaes of guns are outwieghed by the senseless uses. so yes, by controlling guns, you decrease historic usage, but you also decrease a much larger amount of senseless usage. so you result in much less senseless death int he world. thats ther whole point, and it overrides all of the ancillary arguments your mind seems to be stuck on
the committed assholes will always get guns, but we're talking about the logical correlation: stricter laws on material xyz means less xyz in general circulation, regardless of validity of the control of xyz. if guns=xyz, then we have simply less senseless deaths. the logic is so brilliant and obvious, i don't know why or how the propaganda works in your mind that you can't see the blindingly obvious on the subject matter
laws are not computer programs that the slightest deviation from leads to an outright crash
there is plenty of cognitive dissonance between the laws on the books and actions in good faith which are implicitly allowed due to the realization of everyone involved that the law involves complex notions
this is true of any law, by the way, and i'm not speaking only about the subject at hand here
i'm glad you understand the number of avenues of communication are too fluid to get a warrant for a single line beforehand
i'm glad you understand the number of avenues of communication are too fluid to get a warrant for a single individual beforehand
now you put forth the notion of getting a warrant for specific information beforehand
this is wonderful, i like this idea
but you do realize that since this information is always buried in a bunch of noise. that to get this information you are going to invariably catch a whole bunch of other unrelated information in the process, right? you sort of have to put out a drag net, and then pick nuggets out of the sea
but your observation does have validity in that in review, later, this "warrant for information" sets a benchmark against which common sense prudent drag net operations are properly judged, and the information distilled from those dragnets can be seen as germaine or not to the goal at hand
so yes, i agree with you: warrant for informations beforehand, in order to establish a benchmark against which later transparent review can establish good faith in subsequent actions
with the caveat that you understand that a lot of extra noise is captured along with the information being sought (and this of course is expected to be expunged)
for the one metric we care about here in this analogy: less people drank
if you strictly control guns, less people will get them. ie, less senseless deaths will occur. this logic is flawless, i don't see how or why you would contest this
making something illegal or strictly controlly it doesn't stop anyone COMMITTED from getting that thing. but it does stop the casual yahoo. and that's the bulk of what we are talking about here
strict laws most definitely reduces the prevalency of that illicit material. for good reason or not. with marijuana, the limitation is not very morally valid. but the whole idea behind limiting guns is to limit senseless deaths: morally valid
you in fact understand this:
"Yes, it's obvious that if there were no guns they would be no gun crime. There would be other types of violent crime though, human nature being what is is. There would be 40k less deaths a year from cars if there were no cars, so we should make it really hard to get those too."
no one can pick up a knife and kill 13 people in a classroom in under a minute. the issue is that guns are a force multiplier. human violence will never go away, but we can easily reduce the number of force multiplies around. you wont stop all spree shootings, as germany with strict gun laws demonstrates. and you wont stop the truly evil committed criminals from getting guns. but you WILL stop the casual yahoos. you will stop the truly deranged who wouldn't pass review. you would remove the bulk of senseless deaths
less guns means less senseless killings. i dont understand why you cant see that this observation trumps every other observation you make or think you can make on the topic. less guns=less senseless deaths is a valid and easily reachable goal, and it trumps all other topics in play here. is there any human right that you can point out to me that trumps the human right to life?
in fact i believe that petty criminality will go up with less gun ownership. guns do deter petty crime. with less guns, there will be more muggings, for example
so what's the going rate on equivalency rate of muggings to senseless deaths? 1,000 muggings a life? this is absurd moral equivalency, but it works for me temporarily to make this point: if the usa has 10x less senseless deaths due to guns every year, with strict gun control laws, then i can easily put up with a 10,000x increase in petty crimes. why can't you?