How about I keep my reasoning as: "You get what you pay for." I KNOW a revolver will last longer than most owners will fire it before they take it to a pawn shop. I KNOW you have to be really creative to hurt a Glock to the point where it won't function.
Anyone I care about is not going to live with the absolute cheapest gun in the world to protect their family. I'm trying to imagine what our soldiers would say if there was an announcement: "Ladies and Gentlemen. Since you are dissatisfied with Berettas, and you are unlikely to need a sidearm in the first place, we have decided to replace them all with Hi-Point 9mms. It should last at least long enough for you to qualify with it a couple of times."
Yes, I HAVE fired them. I did have a failure to feed with the .40, but that isn't why I hate them. They have poor ergonomics, crappy triggers, and every single part of them is made in the absolute cheapest way possible. It's like saying; "Mom, I know you have had a scare with a house fire before, so I'm going to help you out. I got you a smoke detector and a fire extinguisher. But I didn't have a lot of cash, so I got you the ones from the guy at the swap meet who sells them out of his trunk. The box on the smoke detector is resealed, and the batteries are off-brand alkaline, but batteries are all the same right? The fire extinguisher is small, mostly plastic, and is from a brand I've never seen in a business or institute which has insurance standards for fire suppression. But a smoke detector is a smoke detector, all fire extinguishers are the same, so you can be confident knowing I have done everything I can to make you safe. Merry Christmas."
Is that enough explanation for you?