Perhaps you were being sarcastic. But if not, what squid was referencing is an old gun adage. I meant that carrying two guns is better than one because if that one gun gets lost/fails/drops/taken, you're screwed.
What sarcasm? That's saying something you don't really mean, like "Honey, I love your new (GAG!) dress" or "Honest politician."
I am simply disagreeing with the so-called "adage" (or philosophy or principle).
I have seen this "adage" given various sources (Marines, Rangers, Seals, survivalists, "the military," Texas Rangers, SWAT, Clint Smith, and Nassim Talib.).
I have seen it explained as applying to all manner of gear - guns, knives, magazines (BANG!), compasses, match safes, flashlights, stoves, canteens.
And I have seen posters who obviously thought the "wiser," "faster," and "low drag" were actually telling them to have at least two of everything.
If the intent is to say that backup/redundancy is good, fine. Say it.
If the intent is to say you should have gear with multiple purposes, good. Say it.
I understand. Gear fails. S**t happens. What "cannot fail" still fails. (Murphy was an optimist.)
But "One is none" is about as useful as "The knife you have is the best for the job" vs. "You can only use the knife you have with you." One is senseless. One makes sense.
And I can only carry so much stuff.
And if one is none and two is one, you need three. Buit wait! Three is two and two is one and one is none. You apparently need an infinite number because infinity minus one is still not one (at first).
We had two armed robbers here in Ohio (Canton to be precise) who learned a couple of days ago that one is one. The gas station employee had one pistol. Society now has two fewer armed robbers. One was not none.
Here's a test. If I have a rifle and a pistol (both loaded) do those items represent: a) two weapons; b) one weapon; or c) no weapons? I have seen all three argued for as the correct answer. ("One primary? That's none.")
Return to your regularly scheduled programming.