But in all seriousness... do you really need a $7000 race gun to shoot a silhouette at 5 yards and get all alphas?
Obviously not.
However, if you want to win a Bullseye match, your gun had better shoot 1/2" groups at 25 yards.
Our local pistol club has after-work matches during the colder months. I had an iron-sight 22/45, still my favorite plinking pistol, and I shot in the 450s. I got a Mark II Target and moved up to the low 480s. Had it filled with Volquartsen parts and 'smithed, and went to the high 480s. Switched to the optic that the top guys use, went to the low 490s. Put on a fancy Herrett target grip, and went to the high 490s. With a bit more practice, finally shot a 500 and brought home a 1st Place plaque.
Now this is not a high-end gun, but it cost me a pretty penny, now that it's done. And every penny I spent, added to my score. At this point, it's about a $1000 Ruger .22 pistol. Would I spend that for shooting cans? No. Would I spend that for competition? Yes -- if I want to win. Compared to some of the guns people use, it's cheap...
If someone has a lot of 25 patches in Skeet with a gun that is sub-optimal for Skeet, I'm betting he'd have 100 patches instead, with an ideal gun. That ideal gun would cost a lot more, and it might not be worth it to a casual shooter who practices for bird hunting, but to someone whose goal is to win at Registered Skeet, it would be "worth it."
Obviously, there are people who buy a fancy gun, and can't shoot. If they can afford it, that's fine. It doesn't make them good shots, and generally, accolades and awards come from good shooting.
And there are people who think their guns make them superior people. They are jerks. They are jerks whether they think that their cheap guns make them better, or their expensive ones.
But, there are plenty of people who shoot seriously, and buy the appropriate gun to win at their disciplines. If that gun is expensive, they save up, they suck it up, and they buy it.