The saying in question is based on a false premise.
Not at all. There's some interesting reading on it, but it was used by Jeff Cooper and Elmer Keith to infer that "shooting isn't an equipment driven sport" or, "you can't buy your way to being a good shot." We at THR have a tendency to lean heavily toward "practice! practice! practice!" so this really shouldn't be a foreign concept.
It was never meant to say that owning
more than one gun was a bad thing, it was meant to say that owning
only one gun was not a bad thing, or your skill level was not proportional to the number of guns you owned.
If you take in in the context that is was meant, it makes perfect sense.
1. It doesn't apply to every one. It was only meant to apply to poor gun owners (or new gun owners) as a means of reassurance and to rich gun snobs as a jab.
2. When it doesn't apply, just disregard it, it really isn't a big deal.
3. The fact of owning x amount of guns by itself has NO bearing on shooting ability, practicing does and it can be achieved with one gun. See #4. for a better explanation.
4. When we give advise to new gun owners we follow this to a T, do we not?
Example; "Looking for first handgun, suggestions?" is the thread subject.
Reply; "might I suggest brand x and a crap ton of ammo to become proficient?"
Successive replies; "might I suggest brand y and a crap ton of ammo."
Or "no matter what you get, get a crap ton of ammo and practice."
I have one gun. I also have virtually no training (other than what I've found on the internet) and very little practice. Should you beware of me?
You should beware of any man with a gun, even a broken be right twice a day.