In the Shortness of Time (and Distance)

In my head, I hear the phrase, "In the fullness of time." It is one of those biblical phrases which connotes the slow, rich, full and mature development of something. It reminds me of the way a bud forms, a flower blossoms, and a fruit ripens to full sweetness. If only education could be that way — in the human context a deliberate, engaged, maturing process of learning and developing towards some higher goal.

But the problem is that we are always cajoled and harassed into the idea that time is short, that thinking should be instinctively correct, that reflex is more powerful than reason. We look at the (ahem) firearms control debate that has raged for 250 years in America, and the solution is obvious: in English law, there is a traditional (how traditional? try looking back to before the age of the Vikings for its antecedents!) presumption that a citizen has the duty to bear arms and be capable of self-defence, hence all citizens should be allowed to keep weapons for certain purposes. These purposes include defence of property, protection of individual rights, and carrying out the intent of the state where this does not infringe on the first two.

However, that's only one half of the solution. The nutcases which sprout in spring (or summer, autumn or winter) and shoot people could certainly not kill so many people at once without access to explosive technology (chemical explosives and firearms). You can't blow up a building or mow down a crowd easily with a 4-inch blade. The other half of the solution must be some form of regulation or education that prevents these incidents. In all history, it's never been possible to completely eliminate the psychotic and over-stressed.

The solution then is to allow everyone to carry weapons of limited reach, while educating everyone in the rigorous limits and techniques of their use. We have the technology, we claim we can educate, so why not?

There are some states that call themselves republics in which there is a right — nay, a duty — to bear arms. Because the state is run by its citizens, the duty is that of a citizen army. And a citizen police force. And private citizen law-enforcement. And a strong rule of law which makes the use of ranged weapons illegal without a license and an official responsibility to go with it. If half the country is in the armed forces, then why would you be defending yourselves against the armed forces?

There are solutions out there. Most of them will either focus on restricting individual freedoms, or on allowing the free and open mutual contestation of freedoms. That is, in the extreme, either people don't carry ranged weapons at all, or they shoot each other until the only ones left are those who by definition are survivors.

I am so proud that up to this point, I've not mentioned that three-letter word that begins with 'g', ends with 'n', and is an anagram of 'gnu'. I just hope that everyone can be trained (when angry) to count up to more letters than are found in that word before acting. Perhaps to be trained to count up to 'semi-automatic machine pistol' is a good thing, then.

Time is short, education is long. This is the fearful asymmetry that plagues us all, no matter what the issue at hand.