Let's assume for a moment that the Lone Ranger stories have their origin in a real-life historical figure; i.e., that there really was a Lone Ranger. If the stories have any truth to them at all, then the historical Ranger was an honorable man, dedicated to protecting peaceable, honest folks against violent and/or dishonest ones. He became the Ranger when he and a group of other people were betrayed. He was the only survivor, and at least one of the dead had been very dear to him. He was rescued by someone considerably different from himself, who helped him conceal the fact of his survival. The rest is just details, so the real Ranger and the Ranger we're used to may have differed greatly in other ways (such as the type of mask they wore).
Bletcher's character kills a lot of the bad guys in this one, too- there's hardly any shooting of guns from the villians' hands.
This sounds far more realistic than Moore's Ranger, who shoots "only to wound, not to kill." Even if you're a crack shot who actually *can* reliably shoot a gun out of someone's hand, you still need to remember that a wounded man is angry and in pain, making him far more dangerous than otherwise, both to you and to innocent bystanders. I imagine the radio and television shows developed their no-kill philosophy because their target audience was children.
reply
share