People make such a huge fuss about the importance of protecting themselves and then buy something that is so barely adequate. If your life is only worth $100 why bother with a pistol at all.
Money is not the only measure of a man, or a life. Bob Prosky, the actor that played Sgt Yablonski on Hill Street Blues and also appeared in "Hoffa", sat in his living room with an inexpensive shotgun in S.E. D.C. during the '68 riots. It wasn't that his and his family's lives weren't worth more - it was all a struggling actor could afford at the time.
Word got out, his home was untouched.
Another man, whose name you would recognize had a cheap .22 lr revolver handy in those days. Today, that guy can buy whatever weapon he wants, but not back when he and Mr. Prosky were making a living at Arena stage. {hint - if you saw "Shooter" you have seen some of his latest work}
I do agree that one should arm themselves the best they can afford. I disagree with you that the monetarily poor are not worth saving. Both of the actors above felt the weapons they had prevented people from hurting or killing them in those times of turbulence.
But since they could not afford good guns by your reasoning they should not have bothered.
I have to disagree.
Many people who started out in poverty have made great contributions to our society, our nation, and our way of life.
I understand your concern about lowlifes getting their hands on these and other cheap weapons. Near my home state we have seen one of the Dupont Family and Tom Campagno (a prominent attorney) convicted of killing folk with guns.
I submit to you that in todays society there is no situation in which someone has enough money to purchase a hi-point and enough ammo to practice and keep the gun loaded, but does not have the means to save up or purchase (visa, mastercard, amex, birthdays, xmas, loose change) a quality inexpensive firearm.
I would say yes, one should save up for a better gun - AFTER they have a gun. Being unarmed while saving up is not what I would advise anyone who feels that they could benefit from being armed against attack.
I have to agree with your position. Still my opinion is that one should arm themselves sooner rather than saving up and doing so later. We will also have to agree to disagree on the suitability of Hi Point as a quality inexpensive firearm.
Having two of them, I think they meet that description. YMMV.
More on Topic, addressing the capability of the C9 - I cannot put 8 shots into one inch at seven yards. Here is the best I managed in failure to stop drills at seven yards. Three shots in two seconds from low ready position. ( Holster work not allowed on that range - nor 'fast scoops' from the lane table)
http://www.doublebad.net/C9MOZ.JPG
While that is no where near the claim of 8 shots between the eyes in four seconds - I don't know of too many who would volunteer to replace the paper bad guy. My limited skills not withstanding.
They are cheap, low tech, bottom of the barrel guns. Nothing great.
We will have to agree to disagree here. There are better guns. No Question. I have paid more for less over the last twenty five years. To me, an affordable American made pistol within the reach of just about anybody who works is great. Might not float your boat, but I approve of the concept.
I have "better" guns. I have a nice antique colt that got it's original grip chipped in an evidence safe. So out on my property where wannabe slingers and crackheads may be encountered I carry my Hi Points. No matter what vagaries they suffer in the hands of the well intentioned yet misguided, Hi Point will fix them. Colt won't. To me that makes them great.
