Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I believe that the "One Gun Man" is a very overblown concept. It may have had some relevance back in the 19th century and early 20th, when the value of a quality (or even cheap) firearm might have been a difficult financial hurdle for most folks. Combining the inability to afford a stable full of guns with the basic survival need to use them often and effectively to put food on the table certainly did breed a lot of folks who only had one or two guns and were very skilled in their use.
Now, even a high quality firearm rarely represents more than a few week's pay for most shooters. And there are tons of decent enough guns that are available for the equivalent of even a few DAY's pay. It isn't so hard to pick up a few. Whether we choose to or not, most of us could budget to purchase at least one quality firearm every year if we felt the need. (And some of us are MUCH more acquisitive than that!) For the majority of families in the 1880s to 1930s (many living at least partially through substance farming/hunting and the barter system) such disposable income would have been a wild dream. So you have the quintessential single-shot .22 or 12 ga. used to put meat on the table for a generation.
But the changes don't stop there because now, very VERY few people really count on their skill with a firearm to procure sustenance. There are plenty of hunters, of course, and they may be skilled enough with their rifles to kill a deer or two most years at short to moderate distances, or to kill a duck or goose with their shotgun, but the majority of REALLY skilled marksmen are shooting enthusiasts. Folks for whom shooting and gun collecting are hobbies that have very little to do with the necessities of their lives. That type of person doesn't generally have ONE gun. (I'd put forth that modern hunters rarely do, either.)
Now, it is said anyway, that there are an awful lot of folks who own just that one gun they keep in the sock drawer to ward off bad guys and never gets shot. I don't know that there are these folks for certain, but it's logical to assume they exist. But their skill with arms would unquestionably drag down the curve, so to speak.
All that to say: there may have been a time where this statement had a little homey truth to it, but I don't think it does in today's world. Skill at arms takes practice. Practice requires a purpose. That purpose is now no longer sustenance but interest/enthusiasm for shooting. Interest/enthusiasm breeds acquisitiveness which to me suggests that good shooters aren't "one gun" dudes any more.
IMHO
-Sam
Now, even a high quality firearm rarely represents more than a few week's pay for most shooters. And there are tons of decent enough guns that are available for the equivalent of even a few DAY's pay. It isn't so hard to pick up a few. Whether we choose to or not, most of us could budget to purchase at least one quality firearm every year if we felt the need. (And some of us are MUCH more acquisitive than that!) For the majority of families in the 1880s to 1930s (many living at least partially through substance farming/hunting and the barter system) such disposable income would have been a wild dream. So you have the quintessential single-shot .22 or 12 ga. used to put meat on the table for a generation.
But the changes don't stop there because now, very VERY few people really count on their skill with a firearm to procure sustenance. There are plenty of hunters, of course, and they may be skilled enough with their rifles to kill a deer or two most years at short to moderate distances, or to kill a duck or goose with their shotgun, but the majority of REALLY skilled marksmen are shooting enthusiasts. Folks for whom shooting and gun collecting are hobbies that have very little to do with the necessities of their lives. That type of person doesn't generally have ONE gun. (I'd put forth that modern hunters rarely do, either.)
Now, it is said anyway, that there are an awful lot of folks who own just that one gun they keep in the sock drawer to ward off bad guys and never gets shot. I don't know that there are these folks for certain, but it's logical to assume they exist. But their skill with arms would unquestionably drag down the curve, so to speak.
All that to say: there may have been a time where this statement had a little homey truth to it, but I don't think it does in today's world. Skill at arms takes practice. Practice requires a purpose. That purpose is now no longer sustenance but interest/enthusiasm for shooting. Interest/enthusiasm breeds acquisitiveness which to me suggests that good shooters aren't "one gun" dudes any more.
IMHO
-Sam
