Whether it is a gun or a wrench, there is a difference in the tools. But the question is whether or not the difference matters for the purpose it was bought. If you need a gun to sit in your nightstand for home protection, a Hi-Point will do the same job as another gun that costs many times more than it does. Besides, if the police takes your gun as evidence, I would rather they have my Hi-Point than a very expensive handgun. Hi-Points are reliable and accurate at self defense distances and the ugly and heavy thing will not be seen by anyone else. I have friends that bought Snap-on tools they used for decades in their work and they have been happy with them but I'm still using the 3/8" ratchet and metric sockets I got for Christmas in 1965 when I was in high school. Sears replaced the ratchet about 40 years ago with their lifetime warranty (that is probably dying at any time).
I'm aware that different users have different needs. I myself don't own Snap On tools. I don't completely agree with your metaphor. The differences here aren't just in durability. Trigger, sights, ergonomics, recoil impulse, size, capacity, these are all areas where other pistols have an advantage. These are all aspects of a pistol that could certainly influence your successful use of the firearm. I wouldn't personally call Hi Points the Craftsman of the gun world, not in both reputation and in pricing relative to the rest of the market. Again that doesn't make Hi Points bad. A company that is willing to replace a product should it fail is great. The problem is this isn't a wrench, it's a firearm. If my wrench breaks while I'm using it, it's an annoying day of driving to Sears and back. If my firearm breaks while using it I may be dead and the ability to replace it isn't of much comfort. To be clear, I am NOT stating that using a Hi Point will result in imminent death. I'm pointing out the flaws in the metaphor.
As for police confiscation after a defensive use of a firearm, we've discussed this here before. Every year I have to pay X amount for various forms of insurance. To me a firearm is a form of insurance. In the event I have to discharge a firearm at another human being and potentially injure or kill that person, I am confident in saying that compared to the mental and potential financial aftermath (depending on the circumstances and your state's laws on defense), the loss of that firearm is not a primary concern. Is that because I'm just so wealthy? No, it's because I have a lot more on my table at that point.
If someone is convinced that firearms A and B perform equally for him or her and one is less money to replace, then to me it's logical to use the cheaper one. However, if a person owns multiple firearms, does notably better with one firearm or feels notably more confident with one firearm, and specifically carries or uses the cheaper one just because of the prospect of confiscation after the fact, I think that person is doing himself or herself a disservice (and I apply the same argument for buying a pistol, of course acknowledging budget limitations). And yes it's still your right to do so.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
