I imagine it's probably for the likes of home defence rather than shooting out in the open. They have things like revolvers that fire small-gauge shotgun cartridges so not too much risk of over-penetration.
The gun debate is one of those never-ending things. I'm extremely ambivalent about the subject and can't even reach consensus with myself let alone anybody else. IMHO the US is way too lax about such things but here in the UK we're at the other extreme with even deactivated weapons owned by collectors and those with an academic interest being all but banned now. It makes no difference to public safety (contrary to the pontification of people who should know better, they really can't bought cheap and returned to working condition with half an hour's work: those guns will never fire again, not without replacing so many parts that it'd be safer and cheaper to buy a functioning black market gun) and is one of those useless laws to placate the tabloids. Similar stories with e.g. swords where even people who make and use them professionally are potentially putting themselves at risk from the law simply by transporting them in the boot of their car.
But on the other hand I'm not comfortable with the idea of pretty much anybody who feels like it carrying live firearms of varying lethality. Nobody ever seems to mention the rest of that constitutional thing about the right to bear arms "as part of a well-organised militia" or however it goes. Which renders the argument kinda pointless as somebody who cracks open a few beers and shoots at the empty cans a couple of weekends a year is going to be no match for trained soldiers. Where's gbnf when we need him? I think he's the one that pointed out that when things go bad, armed citizens who take it upon themselves to intervene are very likely to be shot.
