[When 'Good' is Good Enough]

Well, to use motorsports, win on sunday, sell on monday right? But there is no doubt that mill adoption and or building for the top pros in shooting sports are what push the envelope in devvelopment right? So I actually am glad that there is a market segment that can afford to buy the best even if they dont need the best, otherwise dev would not be where it is. BTW I DONT recommend starting on a 250

[When 'Good' is Good Enough]

Maks, a little less tangible but fits in your scenario are people that view things from an insurance policy perspective. Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it. For others there is pride of ownership. But think for a second how this can be a slippery slope that does NOT serve the consumer communities best interest. Think about how many manufacturers have eroded into building for the low round count consumer. They count on the avg consumer to shoot less than 500 rds a year and anyone that really uses the firearm as intended is probably sending it in for warranty work. HK is one of the very few companies that still test fires its weapons before shipping.

[When 'Good' is Good Enough]

It simply depends on the cost of failure. If having to switch to irons at the range or go home early is the consequence, then most will be able to live with it. If the consequences are a blown match that cost you a couple grand to participate in, or a hunting trip to africa, then it may be prudent to buy better. If your life is on the line, then its self evident.

[Are NJ Gun Owners Rats On A Sinking Ship?]

I think you mistakenly believe that these laws are unintentional. They are very much intentional. This state does not want you to have guns. This states court system has already stated you own them through exemptions at your own peril. This state does not care if things end unfairly for you and its about to get a lot worse. I agree with your position that all the BS laws that do nothing but ensnare the unaware and create criminals should end. Things that are a major crime here are mere parking ticket equivalents in other states. But again, that mind set of "evil guns" the courts have, in my opinion, got that way by always having the focus on the firearm instead of the person.

[Are NJ Gun Owners Rats On A Sinking Ship?]

The demonizing of the inanimate object is how we got the laws we have now. You yourself are succumbing to it because you believe if you allow greater penalty to those that commit crimes with a gun will somehow translate into greater freedoms for the law abiding. NJ is proof positive it doesn't work that way. Is there any greater penalty for committing mass murder with a plane or a truck? No because the focus remains on the individual. What about a case that you or I would see as justifiable use of a firearm but the anti 2a prosecutor and judge don't so not only does he get railroaded, he gets additional charges. To see this in action one only has to look at the discrepancy in Brian Aiken's sentence of 7 years vs the person that beat his toddler to brain damage around the same time that got around 4 years. There's tons of cases where the sentence for a crime that didn't even include an overt criminal act that resulted in a sentence far above those given to actual criminals.

[Are NJ Gun Owners Rats On A Sinking Ship?]

"1.  Commit a crime while using a firearm (bank robbery, home invasion, rape, mugging, etc, etc) get a decade added to your prison term when found guilty.  No pleading down to a lesser charge.  No making the gun charge go away. "

 

If you demonize the inanimate object it will remain the focus instead of the individual.