We don't want to take your guns...read H.R. 4269

So the answer to my question is yes, you do think that everyone will hold hands and sing kumbaya and wait for the government to come to the rescue.

Who's the pessimist? Maybe he has a garden and livestock? Maybe he has a well? Maybe he has the knowledge and forethought to be self-sustaining in the event of an catastrophy that temporarily or permanently causes a failure in the infrastructure?  As for imposing his will on others, and stealing from them, that's a pretty rude assumption on your part.

So the answer to my question is yes, you do think that everyone will hold hands and sing kumbaya and wait for the government to come to the rescue.

And I thought we were having a cordial discussion? I was merely pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Who's the pessimist? Maybe he has a garden and livestock? Maybe he has a well? Maybe he has the knowledge and forethought to be self-sustaining in the event of an catastrophy that temporarily or permanently causes a failure in the infrastructure?  As for imposing his will on others, and stealing from them, that's a pretty rude assumption on your part.

I never said he would steal from his fellow Americans. I was just pointing out the flaw in his logic about Americans taking property from one another with violent means once they run out of resources.

Krusty-You suggested he would rob from and cause others harm, or worse. Where's the logic in that.
Oh wait, he's a gun owner, therefore he's inherently bad, right?

Who's the pessimist? Maybe he has a garden and livestock? Maybe he has a well? Maybe he has the knowledge and forethought to be self-sustaining in the event of an catastrophy that temporarily or permanently causes a failure in the infrastructure?  As for imposing his will on others, and stealing from them, that's a pretty rude assumption on your part.

I never said he would steal from his fellow Americans. I was just pointing out the flaw in his logic about Americans taking property from one another with violent means once they run out of resources.

Flaw in my logic?  What? 

Crash distrusts some Americans
Crash is an American
Therefore Crash is distrustful.

That's what you are bringing?? 

 With your logic, once you run out of resources, you would act in a similar manner and use your guns to take other unarmed citizen's properties and impose your will upon them?
[/quote]
Am I reading this wrong?

Who's the pessimist? Maybe he has a garden and livestock? Maybe he has a well? Maybe he has the knowledge and forethought to be self-sustaining in the event of an catastrophy that temporarily or permanently causes a failure in the infrastructure?  As for imposing his will on others, and stealing from them, that's a pretty rude assumption on your part.

I never said he would steal from his fellow Americans. I was just pointing out the flaw in his logic about Americans taking property from one another with violent means once they run out of resources.

Flaw in my logic?  What? 

Crash distrusts some Americans
Crash is an American
Therefore Crash is distrustful.

That's what you are bringing??

Crash's hypothesis: Americans with arms will use violent means to take his property once they run out of resources.
Crash is an American.
Crash is armed.
Therefore Crash will use violent means to take other American's property once he run out of resources.

I hope your hypothesis is wrong.

Who's the pessimist? Maybe he has a garden and livestock? Maybe he has a well? Maybe he has the knowledge and forethought to be self-sustaining in the event of an catastrophy that temporarily or permanently causes a failure in the infrastructure?  As for imposing his will on others, and stealing from them, that's a pretty rude assumption on your part.

I never said he would steal from his fellow Americans. I was just pointing out the flaw in his logic about Americans taking property from one another with violent means once they run out of resources.

Flaw in my logic?  What? 

Crash distrusts some Americans
Crash is an American
Therefore Crash is distrustful.

That's what you are bringing??

Crash's hypothesis: Americans with arms will use violent means to take his property once they run out of resources.
Crash is an American.
Crash is armed.
Therefore Crash will use violent means to take other American's property once he run out of resources.

I hope your hypothesis is wrong.

You've made an extremely basic error called the fallacy of division.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/88-fallacy-of-division

Do you live in a bubble?
Argue logic all you want.
Unprepared people , armed or not, will see that he has food and water, and try to take it. Perhaps by begging, perhaps by sneaking in the night, perhaps by force.
Your point is moot.

Do you live in a bubble?
Argue logic all you want.
Unprepared people , armed or not, will see that he has food and water, and try to take it. Perhaps by begging, perhaps by sneaking in the night, perhaps by force.
Your point is moot.

It's not moot.  It's unsound.  There is a difference.

I was pretty taken aback by the accusation that all gun owners are violent thugs according to me.  That's pretty crazy.  Now that I see how he got there, meh, whatever. 

Ok, how about this...
That don't make no sense!
Can we all get back to being friends now?
 

The assumption that the government will always be there and be the same as it is today is invalid.  From war to terror attacks to cataclysmic natural disasters on local, regional, national or global scale, you can't assume that the government will always be there.

However, I'll concede the point for the sake of argument that the US government today could easily and quickly assert its will by force over its armed populace.  It doesn't change anything.

Where does he assume that the government will always be here? I think the context means present time not some distant future.

The assumption is implicit.  The statement is nonsensical if we remove the assumption.

Who says the future is distant?  There could be a power vacuum tomorrow.  If the Cascadia slips, I want my guns.  If there is another carrington event, I want my guns.  If north korea has actually minaturized a nuclear warhead and launches against the US, I want my guns.  If there is a concerted bio/chemical/nuclear terror attack against the US eastern seaboard, I want my guns. Etc.

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

If a weapon of mass destruction hit the west coast it would create MASS PANIC. also we have learned that disasters of any kind do make people do things they normally wouldn't.
You can call it opportunists that riot and steal rob etc.....  So with any disaster, natural or man made the lawlessness that follows would stretch our local law enforcement so thin you would essentially be on your own.

That's where the need for personal protection and protection for family, food, etc comes in.

Hope it never happens in my time.
I have insurance though if it does.

Read page one, then page 20. No wonder nothing gets done in Congress!

Who's the pessimist? Maybe he has a garden and livestock? Maybe he has a well? Maybe he has the knowledge and forethought to be self-sustaining in the event of an catastrophy that temporarily or permanently causes a failure in the infrastructure?  As for imposing his will on others, and stealing from them, that's a pretty rude assumption on your part.

I never said he would steal from his fellow Americans. I was just pointing out the flaw in his logic about Americans taking property from one another with violent means once they run out of resources.

Flaw in my logic?  What? 

Crash distrusts some Americans
Crash is an American
Therefore Crash is distrustful.

That's what you are bringing??

Crash's hypothesis: Americans with arms will use violent means to take his property once they run out of resources.
Crash is an American.
Crash is armed.
Therefore Crash will use violent means to take other American's property once he run out of resources.

I hope your hypothesis is wrong.

You've made an extremely basic error called the fallacy of division.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/88-fallacy-of-division

The faulty hypothesis is the result of inductive fallacy or faulty generalization. Just because violence and looting has occurred in Americans towns in the past during times of crisis (New Orleans during Katrina, LA Riots) does not mean it will happen in the future in your town.