My comment is directed at mainstream gun culture at large and not necessarily at this specific instance. My frustraion is with people who's only way to interact about firearms is to talk about upgrades and similar and constantly mention what somone "should have bought" or "should have done" or what they "need to buy". Especially for people's first guns, when they maybe can't come up with the cash to fully outfit their firearm.

I recall there was a comrade who posted that they had bought a Hi-Point, paid for on an installment plan. Many people who had no experience shooting that specific gun or maybe even at all told them in a derisive manner to just get a Glock because it was better, in spite of the fact that Glocks start at between four and six times the price of a Hi-Point.

A guy on Reddit getting asked why he didn't have an ACOG instead of a Primary Arms prism

Guns are part of a system, not the end all be all of your effectiveness in a deadly force encounter.

[–] Wakmrow@hexbear.net 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Yeah I agree generally. Better a hi point than nothing and I remember that thread too. There's good advice and bad advice. This post is an example of good advice and it's good advice to get a Glock or Glock clone over a hi point. There's a difference between recommending nods vs recommending a first handgun, don't you think?

I say this as a person running a primary seems psa 550 ar 15 with a rattle can job and a $20 Amazon sling