LJ Idol: Season 9, Week 15: Chekov's Gun
The community gun.
Yes, pause and think about those words for a moment.
I’ve yet to meet anyone not previously familiar with the concept that didn’t make a double-take at it. It’s nothing new. For those of you who haven’t heard of it, it is a shared firearm left in a hidden location. Said location is spread by word of mouth. If someone needs a gun for whatever reason, they just go get it and bring it back. People stash them anywhere they can think of. Guns have been found underneath landings of abandoned houses, hidden compartments on trash containers, sometimes in disused mailboxes. All it has to be is dry, inconspicuous, and not call attention to oneself for being there. When police find these things they’re often implicated in a host of crimes, all by actors who at most casually knew each other.
Sometimes the hiding spot isn’t a location. It’s a person. Quite often that person is someone beyond reproach. It could be an old lady with grandchildren. It could be a pastor. It could be a respected business owner. These guns are some of the hardest to root out for two reasons. The first is the burden of proof required to search for the gun is much higher in light of the status of the person in question. The second is because it means making a public spectacle of discovering it and putting someone people really like through the justice system. But the principle doesn’t change - if someone needs the gun, they go see them, borrow it, and bring it back.
Their existence is not organic. Especially in a state like New York where possession of a pistol is heavily regulated, actually being caught with one can have dire consequences even if a DA can’t make anything else stick. The penalties are even greater if you have a prior felony conviction. It makes sense to only have a gun on you if you think you’re going to need to use it. There’s a side benefit of not having a gun sitting around the house where kids can play with it - except of course when one finds the gun on the street.
This has been the way of life in New York City for decades, as it is virtually impossible for anyone not law enforcement or rich and connected to the Mayor’s office to get a permit to carry within city limits. Cities without firearms would be a better place - sure, in England where firearm ownership is all but abolished (UK Olympic teams train in Ireland, it’s just that hard to get permits) people stab each other. Yet there’s a difference. A knife only does one person’s amount of damage. A gun massively increases how much harm one person can do.
I’ve shocked people who are very much in favor of private ownership of firearms with this concept. Except for the xenophobic gun nut that feels any life that conceivably threatens their property is forfeit, they have been appalled that someone would actually hurt people with these things in the way they do. They haven’t missed the news of shooting after shooting in schools and other public places, but they still maintain their insistence that they be able to protect themselves and their families, as well as use their weapons for sport and sustenance. Show them pictures of selfies with their booger hooks on the bang switch and the response will often involve cleaning out the gene pool.
So what do we do instead? People are going to want to kill each other it seems and will go about obtaining the strongest means available to do so, considering just what they might be threatened by. No amount of praying for an end to gun violence is going to do the trick. In considering the situation in the Gaza Strip at the moment, I found myself weighing the demands of one side (ending a years-long blockade) with the other (stripping the region of all military capacity). Would private individuals resort to guns if they didn’t feel they had to?
Preventing crime is not about deterrence. It’s about eliminating the need. Mind you, I am this radical socialist that believes in universal housing, universal health care, universal education, and guaranteed basic income. The emotional ties to crime would still exist, but many of the economic motivations would end, almost overnight. Yet this solution would require a full acknowledgement of the inherent dignity and worth of all people, not just those who the privileged deem worthy, and we’ve got some way to go yet on that.
Yes, pause and think about those words for a moment.
I’ve yet to meet anyone not previously familiar with the concept that didn’t make a double-take at it. It’s nothing new. For those of you who haven’t heard of it, it is a shared firearm left in a hidden location. Said location is spread by word of mouth. If someone needs a gun for whatever reason, they just go get it and bring it back. People stash them anywhere they can think of. Guns have been found underneath landings of abandoned houses, hidden compartments on trash containers, sometimes in disused mailboxes. All it has to be is dry, inconspicuous, and not call attention to oneself for being there. When police find these things they’re often implicated in a host of crimes, all by actors who at most casually knew each other.
Sometimes the hiding spot isn’t a location. It’s a person. Quite often that person is someone beyond reproach. It could be an old lady with grandchildren. It could be a pastor. It could be a respected business owner. These guns are some of the hardest to root out for two reasons. The first is the burden of proof required to search for the gun is much higher in light of the status of the person in question. The second is because it means making a public spectacle of discovering it and putting someone people really like through the justice system. But the principle doesn’t change - if someone needs the gun, they go see them, borrow it, and bring it back.
Their existence is not organic. Especially in a state like New York where possession of a pistol is heavily regulated, actually being caught with one can have dire consequences even if a DA can’t make anything else stick. The penalties are even greater if you have a prior felony conviction. It makes sense to only have a gun on you if you think you’re going to need to use it. There’s a side benefit of not having a gun sitting around the house where kids can play with it - except of course when one finds the gun on the street.
This has been the way of life in New York City for decades, as it is virtually impossible for anyone not law enforcement or rich and connected to the Mayor’s office to get a permit to carry within city limits. Cities without firearms would be a better place - sure, in England where firearm ownership is all but abolished (UK Olympic teams train in Ireland, it’s just that hard to get permits) people stab each other. Yet there’s a difference. A knife only does one person’s amount of damage. A gun massively increases how much harm one person can do.
I’ve shocked people who are very much in favor of private ownership of firearms with this concept. Except for the xenophobic gun nut that feels any life that conceivably threatens their property is forfeit, they have been appalled that someone would actually hurt people with these things in the way they do. They haven’t missed the news of shooting after shooting in schools and other public places, but they still maintain their insistence that they be able to protect themselves and their families, as well as use their weapons for sport and sustenance. Show them pictures of selfies with their booger hooks on the bang switch and the response will often involve cleaning out the gene pool.
So what do we do instead? People are going to want to kill each other it seems and will go about obtaining the strongest means available to do so, considering just what they might be threatened by. No amount of praying for an end to gun violence is going to do the trick. In considering the situation in the Gaza Strip at the moment, I found myself weighing the demands of one side (ending a years-long blockade) with the other (stripping the region of all military capacity). Would private individuals resort to guns if they didn’t feel they had to?
Preventing crime is not about deterrence. It’s about eliminating the need. Mind you, I am this radical socialist that believes in universal housing, universal health care, universal education, and guaranteed basic income. The emotional ties to crime would still exist, but many of the economic motivations would end, almost overnight. Yet this solution would require a full acknowledgement of the inherent dignity and worth of all people, not just those who the privileged deem worthy, and we’ve got some way to go yet on that.