A Dreiling is somewhat heavy and and difficult to handle, not to mention that they are very expensive.surely the Mrs and child need a rifle with at least three -barrels and a belt with a long string of bullets,
Looks like a good choice. Anyway I would prefer a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot rounds, as it's able to hit the target with enough power and minimal (if any) aiming.IMO, she'd be better off with modern sporting carbine and a 30 round (standard capacity!) magazine.
................... the overwhelming majority of defense situations, firearms are effective in stopping a crime to occur even without being fired (or even without being seen, remember security staff of politicians and celebrities who carry concealed weapons). Thousands of police officers stop crimes every day withot firing a single round and nobody claims they are being ineffective because they didn't kill anyone
@Uwe: I wouldn't have thought it possible - but for once, I agree with your position on guns!! Thank you for making my argument on gun control!!@Ronaldo I agree that any gun is better than no gun, but much depends on the number of attackers and how determined (or drugged up) they are. If they do not back down knowing that their intended victim has a gun, then the gun needs to have sufficient firepower to stop the attack. The woman in the picture appears to have a break-action, breech-loading shotgun. It takes time to reload after firing just one shot (or at most two, if it's a double-barrel). Better than nothing? Sure, but less than optimal as a defensive weapon.
No, as a general rule, one's neighbors are not the problem.
@Uwe: in a previous reply I made the point about perspective being an important part of living in a democracy. Thank you for the "gun control for dummies" explanation.
Once again your premise is incorrect. I do not desire to "arm every American". I only desire to arm those who wish to be armed (which is pretty much already the case) and not to forcibly remove the arms that they have legally acquired and have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to "keep and bear".your solution to gun violence in the community (i.e. arm every American)
So that when evil shows up, we can deal with it ourselves if we have to, rather than depending on someone a government agent with a gun, who may or may not show up in a timely manner, and may or may not be willing to put themselves in harm's way, like the damn cowards at Uvalde:why would any sane American want to live in such a community?
hmm......... a very minor point indeed!Once again your premise is incorrect. I do not desire to "arm every American". I only desire to arm those who wish to be armed (which is pretty much already the case) and not to forcibly remove the arms that they have legally acquired and have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to "keep and bear".
Keep: Means it's mine and you can't have it.
Bear: Means I have one on me and it's loaded.