Everybody likes new things. And the advertising practices of the past 50 years have deepened and solidified our hunger for new things beyond the limits of common sense.
How else to explain the mad dash to ditch a perfectly good smartphone when a new model (that is functionally 97% identical to the old model, and light-years better than the phones of 5 years ago) is released? IT managers were not hallucinating when they observed an increase in broken phones when a new iPhone was released. You can’t have bread & circuses without the bread.
Guns are not immune to this trend. When something bigger/smaller/faster/shinier comes out, we all salivate a little. Senator Phil Gramm once described the size of his arsenal as “more than I need, but not as many as I want”. A smart consumer should mitigate his/her urge to acquire new hardware with the knowledge of: budget priorities, how easy it will be to get ammo/parts/accessories, reliability of warranty coverage, and whether or not the gun is chambered for a caliber that he/she already supports. No one is saying that those are rules to adhere to at all times. But you need to weigh all the factors against your personal situation before deciding. Bullets without a gun to shoot them are as useless as a gun with no bullets.
Kahr Arms has been pursuing a 2-tiered product strategy for a few years now. When they entered the market, they sold high-quality pistols at pricepoints higher than Glock. They now sell a high-end version of a gun, as well as a low-end version. The potential benefit is access to a category of customers that normally wouldn’t be considering your product. The risk in such strategies is that you might negatively impact the sales of the high-end gun more than you gain from the sales of the low-end gun; and that you might dilute your brand’s perception. The vendor must be careful in designing their product tiers to clearly differentiate the tiers for the customer.
A story has been circulating in the gun blog world, a podcast interview with a crime victim as well as the original AR15.com thread where he posted his story.
After listening & reading, I (like many others) believe that there are lessons to be learned from this man’s unfortunate experience.
What those lessons are may depend heavily on the biases that you bring to the analysis.
This guy has beaten himself up plenty over this incident, and I am not trying to pile on. But he made some major errors that are entirely correctable.
A company in Georgia is claiming to have technology to make Smart Guns viable.
“According to Miller, had smart gun technology been available to Nancy Lanza, she could have programmed her guns so that only her fingerprint could have activated them; she could have enabled her son to shoot them at a firing range and disabled them upon returning home, or she could have enabled them for her son to use all the time, Miller said.