Actually, it seemed to come across as a fairly accurate opinion.

In the world-scheme of things, though, the “views of millions” don’t amount to a hill of beans. Millions of feudalists against billions of realists will always be a losing battle, and I believe the billions preferring a world without the millions of terrorists and terrorist supporters are right.

... why gunpowder in its home in China was a pastime for the elite while, when stolen and brought to Europe, it became a deadly and ever evolving weapon of the masses ...

I believe this was more a matter of supply and demand than want. The powder was there, but I think the constant conflict was absent. The governments of the Far East were firmly embroiled, with the feuds developing mainly between castes and villages. China is an incredibly large area, and was not nearly so crowded 500 years ago. Also, the descendants of the Huns were nomadic, so their weaponry had to be very portable. Saber, bow and horse were the choicest weapons, while cannon were small and used for city wall fortification. The existence of a far-reaching gun, regardless of size, kept intruders away. Another technological use of powder in China were the small rockets strapped to arrows to increase their range. As an aside, I seem to recall the novelty of aerial observers in ancient China as well, with lookouts posted on swings that were attached to large kites. Back to subject, yes, China did have cannon, but Europe became quite the connoisseur of gun powder -- and our finest fireworks seem to be from Italian families (shades of Sr. Polo?).

All in all, an excellent read, Larry!

Thanx,
Dan