So was she given or rather did she purchase that gun?

And if she DID, and she was preparing to even use it (at that time, it seemed like she was NOT against killing that r.pist/perpetrator against her, in self defense) as she knew that he was planning to repeat his offense more than once, then how come we don't get to see her use it?

Was the perpetrator too quick to assault her again and she didn't find the right time to use her pistol against him?

Or was she denied the right to purchase a gun but was allowed to practice using it in that "shop" or something?

I didn't quite get that part.

P.S. Don't worry its alright, but the r word for the deed and the perpetrator I just these days feel a little uncomfortable typing in whole letters but everybody gets the point and yeah that's just me and plus, sensitivity and reality of the subject briefly put aside, and it is a movie, sometimes in it we can explore OTHER aspects and issues, including various PLOT points etc and certain scenes, rather than the general say wrongness, despicability, terribleness, "trouble-ness", victimhood, perpetrator existence etc of 'the subject', one way or another. And here I was wondering about the buying and using the gun which I was a bit unclear about.