I particularly liked the Colin Powell story, being as how it's so rich with irony. 

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
What does shooting my car have to do with anything, levity (as in funny) as others may have thought the same.

I was reminded of my WWII-veteran father's favorite Bill Mauldin cartoon -- the one with the old cavalry sergeant, pistol drawn and aimed at his Jeep's motor, head turned away, just about to put the Jeep out of it's misery -- just like he would have with his horse (or mule) in the old days.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi All,

What I was trying to show was a progression (few posts ago, 1800 - 2008) to less necessity for the need to be armed publicly. And hopefully we as a species can leave the middle step out. Crimes will always occur, but the prevalence of violence (for any reason) can diminish, in an advancing society. Our emotions and reactions, currently are too primitive (stemming from primitive brain, or fight or flight reaction) for a current non violent world. We can imagine a non warring world, where countries get along & that's a good start to less violent society. Understand should we as a society advance, crimes & violence will still occur, but become more rare.

What does shooting my car have to do with anything, levity (as in funny) as others may have thought the same. Were dealing with an emotionally charged subject, keeping a sense of humor helps dis-arm anger, which can lead to violence. I DO NOT advocate the disbanding of armies, nor do I feel or wish you give up your weapons, but at some point in our continuing evolvement the need for violent behavior will be diminished. You need to look into the future & imagine a less violent world. It can be done.

As Always Take Care
Rico

Keep dreaming, it isn't going to happen in your lifetime or your children or grandchildren's lifetime.

Quoting eaglejd:

Quote:

Keep dreaming, it isn't going to happen in your lifetime or your children or grandchildren's lifetime.

Actually, it could happen tomorrow under certain circumstances.....

Like an alien invasion (space aliens, that is). 

Depends on what you arer referring to. Just because YOU or someone else thinks something is bad does not make it so, it simply means you think it bad. It doesn't even mean anything if everybody thinks it bad, that doesn't mean that it is, there have been many such mistakes throughout history. You are entitled to that opinion and your belief that some particular action is bad, I might even agree, but that still does not make it so, if some other user disagrees and believes it right he has every right to defend it.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Depends on what you arer referring to. Just because YOU or someone else thinks something is bad does not make it so, it simply means you think it bad. It doesn't even mean anything if everybody thinks it bad, that doesn't mean that it is, there have been many such mistakes throughout history. You are entitled to that opinion and your belief that some particular action is bad, I might even agree, but that still does not make it so, if some other user disagrees and believes it right he has every right to defend it.

Skip

Well, what's bad or not isn't really relevant in this context. The fact is that whenever there is a discussion about what the US is doing you often get arguments like "If it hadn't been for the US intervention in WW II, you Europeans would be speaking german today."

If the argument had been "Is it really bad" then that would have been another matter. But using past actions to defend current ones is just wrong.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Guys,

What's missing here is the progression of society to not need weapons to make ones point. Back in the wild west circa  1800's, it was common to have your 6 gun strapped to your side. As society progressed, the need to wear a gun diminished. We trusted law enforcement, to help alleviate the need for common citizens to arm themselves.

One of the main reasons cowboys wore handguns in the old days (and maybe to some extent even today) was to be able to kill his horse if it ran away with him and he was in danger of falling off -- or had already fallen off and was hung up in the stirrups.  If he didn't have a gun at his side to kill his runaway horse, he would probably have been dragged to his death.  The gun was a necessary tool to one who spent long hours in the saddle aboard an animal well known to be skittish.

Um.... Well, a, I ride and I have all of my life.  I am curious where you got this information.  Shooting a horse at a high gallop is a death sentence, it is very large and likely to fall on you even at speed if you shoot it.  While there are times you would shoot a horse it is to put it out of its misery not to protect yourself.  As for skittish, most horses really are not when broken properly.  Don't get me wrong horses do scare but with an experienced rider it is unlikely the horse would get out of control.

Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
Um.... Well, a, I ride and I have all of my life.  I am curious where you got this information.  Shooting a horse at a high gallop is a death sentence, it is very large and likely to fall on you even at speed if you shoot it.  While there are times you would shoot a horse it is to put it out of its misery not to protect yourself.  As for skittish, most horses really are not when broken properly.  Don't get me wrong horses do scare but with an experienced rider it is unlikely the horse would get out of control.

I'll defer to your experience about horses, since I have only ridden once in my life other than in pony-rings at carnivals -- and that was forty years ago.

I don't now recall where I first read it, but as a fan of both single action revolvers and the Old West, I assure you I read it in more than one place, probably in one of the many gun magazines I read.  I believe the most likely time such an action was necessary was when someone had fallen out of the saddle and was being dragged.  If someone were in that situation, about the only option open to him would be to use his sidearm on his horse. Yes, there'd be a chance that the horse would fall on him, but to stop being dragged from the stirrups would be worth the risk.

What I was trying to point out was that while it was common in the wild west for people to go around armed, they were far more likely to use those guns against non-human targets.  The handgun was a tool -- to be used for a number of things non-lethal to humans.  Things like snakes, wild animals, dispatching injured and in pain animals (horses and cattle), as well as the occasional runaway horse were the more common reason cowboys went around armed -- not to draw down on their fellow citizens.  History tells us that there was actually much less gunplay between citizens than our movies and television have led us to believe.