> why do you assume I'm assuming anything? I am merely looking at the meaning of words you write. > And you're oh-so-sensitive to anything that even implies t

> why do you assume I'm assuming anything? I am merely looking at the meaning of words you write. > And you're oh-so-sensitive to anything that even implies that crime might happen. You're projecting onto me and saying the problem is that I'm "oh-so-sensitive", rather than you being paranoid and hating people and therefore have unrealistically pessimistic movie-plot style ideas about roving gangs that are going to victimize people who massively outnumber them. Just imagine the scene you described: > gridlocked in both directions, with criminals on foot robbing the cars. So I picture a long line of cars, and a small number of people robbing them. If there is traffic gridlock, the bystanders far outnumber the robbers, because gridlock by definition consists of people. You think all of them will let them do it? Note the robbers would also be prevented from leaving by the gridlock that surrounds them. You painted a wildly unlikely scenario, and it's my fault for being "sensitive" to your fantasy. I know, I'm so unreasonable for calling bullshit on this.