[lit-ideas] Little old ladies and the Last Man
- From: "Lawrence Helm"<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:06:04 +0000
Phil:
Well, you are partly right. I value much of my Marine Corps training. When it
comes to combat, personal defense, protecting one's loved ones, sticking up for
friends, it is good to know how to do those things. But once again, much of
this is nothing more than common sense. The Marines didn't create behavior
counter to human behavior. They created behavior for dealing with certain
sorts of human behavior. And this former Marine is here to tell you that the
old lady's behavior is consistent with USMC common-sense instruction.
I don't need to know the criminal's motivations. The old lady in Kentucky
doesn't need to know the criminals's motivations. We do need to know a few
things, but we won't be worrying about the poor criminals problems -- other
than the problems we create for them. We have the drop on them. We are
limiting their choices. We may, if we choose, let them run away without
shooting them. The old lady didn't comment upon that possibility other than to
make sure that if they did run away, it would be without their car. So had
they run away she wouldn't have shot them. I would have shot the prisoners I
was guarding had they tried to run away, but I didn't discuss this possibility.
I wasn't making a comparison of what we would do if the people we were
pointing our guns at ran away. I was talking about what we would and should do
if they decided to jump us. We should not let them. We should use the guns we
had in our hands to prevent that. Anyone charging a loaded gun is up to no
good. He is dangerous in the extreme.
Many non-trained civilians, especially women, will not be able to pull the
trigger to protect themselves. Police will warn of this. Best not have a
gun, they tell many people, because if you have one, you probably won't use it.
The criminal will take it away from you and use it on you. How did this
little old lady tell the criminals that she was not to be trifled with in this
manner? One thing she did was shoot out the tires on their car. This told
them that she was very willing and able to use the gun; so they should give up
all thought of rushing her and taking her gun away from her. I have evidence
that the prisoners I was guarding were convinced I would use my gun if
necessary, but perhaps the thieves were not initially convinced of that -- an
old lady with a walker? Surely she wouldn't be able to protect herself.
Surely we thieves can do whatever we like to her and to her property. But then
she showed she could shoot and that changed everything.
You keep concerning yourself with the motivation of the criminals. Forget the
criminals and concern yourself with the victim. The criminals deserve whatever
harm comes their way. There are too many criminals, too many predators and too
many bizarre Leftist-pacifist laws to protect them. You exhibit here more
concern for the criminals than you do for the little old lady and that, sadly,
seems consistent with modern Leftist-pacifist thought. What makes you think
that a little old lady deciding to protect her property puts her on the other
side of the pale? Our American founding fathers initially had as one of our
god-given rights the right to property. That was changed at some point to the
right to the pursuit of happiness. But in her case her pursuit of happiness
included the accumulation of certain possessions. Many old people accumulate
things that are important to them. This isn't aberrant behavior. And these
accumulated things may mean nothing to someone else, but here in the U.S. it is
their right to have and keep them.. They have the right to pursue happiness in
their own way.
This particular little old lady didn't want to kill these guys. She wanted to
hold them for the police. She wanted to prevent them from robbing her. She
didn't want to let them go because that happened once before. She was robbed
and the thieves got away. If at all possible she was going to hold these
thieves for the police. She shot out their tires so they couldn't get away.
Also, she made it clear to them that they shouldn't dismiss her as an inept
little old lady and try to take her gun from her. She demonstrated to them
that she could use it.
Leftist-pacifists who oppose this little old lady, this potential victim, for
protecting her property and menacing thieves with her gun are in the wrong
here, in my opinion. Leftist-Pacifists are the "Last Man" that Nietzsche and
Fukuyama worried about. They are people unwilling to fight for what is right.
They explain away the distinction between right and wrong, friend and enemy so
that everything remains comfortably innocuous. Fukuyama didn't fear the Last
Man in quite the same way that Nietzsche did, but he recognized that in his
Kojeve/Hegelian End of History thesis. Nietzsche's Last Man seemed
inevitable. Surely if Liberal-Democracy prevails throughout the world, there
will be a calming effect, a leveling, and little need for individuals to rise
up and exert their individuality against the gray Last Man. But Fukuyama
thought some individuals might do it anyway -- perhaps through boredom. But
that time, the time of the Last Man is still a long way off for most of us.
Even if he is inevitable, most of us here in the U.S. aren't chasing after him.
He isn't desirable to us. He is not the one who produces the great
literature, the great music, painting, and sculpture. And he is not the
entrepreneur that creates new wealth that fuels the engine of our particular
Liberal Democratic economy. We are, most of us, a long way from embracing the
Last Man that so many Europeans and Canadians have fallen in love with.
Lawrence
------------Original Message------------
From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, Apr-24-2007 8:06 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"The Korean incident I described had to do with my guarding three murderers
awaiting court martial. They were not enemy soldiers."
I wasn't referring to the prisoners, but rather your training as a Marine
and rifle instructer. That is the lens through which you see all conflict.
For example, you continue to equate the situation of the elderly lady with
your situation in Korea as a Marine, with both of you facing the enemy. For
you, the enemy, they being enemy soldiers firing at you in battle or
murderers trying to escape, always have the willingness and intent to kill.
This, however, is certainly not true of the vast majority of criminals.
Burglers and thieves, in particular, want stuff, not confrontation and
violence. This inability of yours to distinguish between the varieties of
crimes is unhelpful.
Lawrence continues:
"Why are they coming after me?"
This is precisely the sort of question one ought to ask. Obviously they
were after farm stuff and had no interest in her personally. And yet she
had to pop off her gun. So why is she a hero for shooting at people who, in
running away, were obviously not interested in a confrontation? The answer
is that she felt threatened. Again, feeling threatened isn't a
justification for using a gun. As a paranoid, she is the hero of the
equally paranoid.
Lawrence, again:
"You sound just like a Canadian, Phil."
Thank you.
Lawrence concludes:
"Whatever I felt as a Marine or the old lady felt confronting the thieves,
we were standing there with our common sense turned on, knowing that the
people standing before us were our enemies. We knew that if they could, if
they thought we were weak and perhaps from Canada, they would take advantage
of us, take our weapons away from us and incapacitate us to some extent
before running away."
As a Canadian, of all the possible outcomes, the one where no one dies
strikes me as being obviously ideal. Further, living in a society where the
world is not divided up into the good guys vs. murderous enemies, stikes me
as being a good thing. I prefer a society that is able to differentiate
between violent and non-violent criminals. I prefer a society where there
is not the common assumption that any confrontation likely leads to people
shooting at each other. I also know that there are many communities in the
US that share these 'Canadian' values, so it is a bit silly to turn this
into a US vs. Canada thing.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
