??? Here it is, straight from post 2130, did you forget?
Let's examine why man needed to injure and kill, shall we? Why was it necessary to kill and injure?
To protect families and homes. To wage war to protect resources and territory. To kill for food. Since all of prehistory.
The gun was designed as better technology to PROTECT people and keep them alive. The need had always been there and man had always designed weapons to protect themselves and those things.
So should man not have invented a better means of protection? For getting food? Yes? No? If no, why not?
So how many times will I need to cut and paste this for you? How many times before you stop denying it's accurate and that
guns provide valid protection, true to their design and purpose, just like any other weapons that man created for the same purpose, before and since the invention of firearms?
Do you need instruction on 'how' guns work? Is that what you're asking, because otherwise, why are you asking that question, again?
Here's a quick example for you:
Nice neighborhood in Seattle, an attacker climbed up to a balcony, entered thru sliding glass doors, with an ax. The husband went and got his handgun and drove the attacker from the apt. He protected his family with a firearm, and didnt even need to fire it.
(Because of your repetitive question, re: "how", I'll make it even more obvious...if the attacker had instead charged with the ax, the husband could have protected his family by shooting the attacker. No baseball bat, etc was going to work here...this man was properly prepared and protected his family.)
The defendant's case was dismissed after a judge deemed him incompetent for trial.
www.king5.com