water cannon

[drewpee]

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by drewpee

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

erm, how do you think we haven't killed each other after WW2 so far? The "peaceful" United Kingdom has some 226 nuclear warheads, enough to obliterate this planet a couple of times..

Since the end of WW2 peace among the "important countries" has been maintained by a balance of firepowers, not by smiles and civilised manners.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by drewpee

Still don't get the idea that a civilized world is safer with guns. Are we also to believe nuclear weapons makes our planet safer? They are also said to be for self defence.
As far as the argument that cars are more dangerous that's ludacris. What about ambulances, fire engines, supply trucks and farm vehicles. They're a necessary risk. Saving far more than killing.

guns are just a weapon, not the weapon. They can be used in an offensive manner as much as they can be used in a defensive one, and they're the ultimate balance: no matter how strong you are, if I have a gun and you're bigger than me, I win.

The example you make is an exception just like firearms given to armed response squads: they have a specific purpose. Still, cars and reckless driving kill more than firearms.