I’ve heard a number of opinions on this, and had a few people offer me their unsolicited opinion that carrying a ($1000, $2000, $3000, whatever) 1911 is just dumb, and they carry a $500 GLOCK so they can throw it on the parking lot when the police show up. I’ve even heard people who really should know better say stuff like this.
If a gun is “irreplaceable” for some reason - be it rarity or economics or some other reason - then it’s certainly worth considering whether you want to risk losing it in any circumstance. Like anything else you can’t replace.
But, economically, buying a gun just because you don’t want to carry a more expensive gun (which you already own) is like buying an insurance policy - you’re spending today against the possibility of greater spending in the future.
I’m just ballparking prices here so just go along but it seems to me that your looking at spending ~$1,500 today against the *possibility* of spending ~$3500 in the future. That’s a fairly expensive insurance policy.
Because, if the worst happens and you actually do lose the TRP, you’re still out the $1,500 plus another $1,500 to replace it vs ~$3500 to replace the Falcon you already have. If the prices are $1000/$4000 the economics are more favorable, but not really that much.
There are, of course, many other variables in (and reasons for) buying a gun. Maybe you just want a new TRP. And I agree the loss of a gun is usually a lesser concern in a self-defense event. But in response to the original, stated reasoning this is how I think about it.
