The Tale of a Gun

Edward Archer and his attack on Officer Jesse Hartnett

The gun was a semiautomatic nine millimeter pistol, with at least a 10-round magazine, most likely a Glock 17. It had been issued to an unnamed Philadelphia police officer.

Then, in  October, 2013, the gun was stolen from the police officer’s home.

There followed a shadowy interlude of just over two years during which the gun changed hands who knows how many times, participating in who knows how much mischief. Eventually, it ended up in the possession of one Edward Archer, 30, a self-professed Islamic radical.

Archer had already shown himself to be susceptible to the siren call of a gun. In 2012, he was arrested following a domestic dispute in which Archer “pulled a small black and silver semiautomatic handgun from his waist and pointed it towards the complainant's stomach while grabbing the complainant's shirt." Arrested and charged with assault and carrying a gun without a license, the courts sentenced him to nine to 23 months, but immediately paroled him, releasing him to the streets.

In the current event, on January 7^th, Archer, dressed in a traditional white Muslim robe, attempted to assassinate Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett. Charging Harnett’s cruiser at point blank range, Archer fired his stolen Glock from 11 to 13 times (as various sources report). Hartnett took three shots to his left arm, was critically wounded, but heroically exited his car and gave chase, shooting and wounding Archer in the buttocks before radioing for assistance. Archer's attack was captured on video by a security camera and has been widely viewed.

Backup units sped to the scene and Archer was quickly apprehended, his smoking gun still in hand. But the question of motivation remained.

According to CNN, the suspect told investigators: "I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State and that's why I did what I did."

Philadelphia police commissioner, Richard Ross, expounded. "According to him, he believed that the police defend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran."

Archer had traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and Egypt in 2012. His mother, Valerie Holliday, stated that her son was a devout Muslim. Asim Abdur Rashid, the imam of Masjid Mujahideen mosque, said that Archer “was a frequent member of the masjid.”

The draw of Islamic radicalism is one theory. But Jim Kenney, the mayor of Philadelphia, assured us that this was all a ruse. “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen,” said Mayor Kenney.

“That is abhorrent. It’s just terrible and it does not represent this religion [Islam] in any way shape or form or any of its teachings,” he added. “This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

Doubling down, Kenney blamed the stolen police weapon. "There are too many guns on our streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that."

Then the White House weighed in. Josh Earnest, the President’s press secretary, said ”Certainly one thing we can do is to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. Whether it’s somebody who planned to carry out a terrorist act or somebody who has significant mental problems shouldn’t be so easily able to get their hands on a gun.”

(Earnest, lobbying for greater background checks, apparently forgot that the weapon had originally been stolen from a police officer).

There is also the theory that Archer was mentally unstable. According the Archer’s mother, he had been hearing voices in his head. While Archer’s brother, Shane, denied that Edward was “mental,” the possibility certainly remains.

From this confusing diaspora of events and statements, we are left with three theories to explain Archer’s actions:

1. That Archer was radicalized and performed the shooting in the name of Islam
2. That Archer was mentally unstable and committed the act out of insanity.
3. That the gun somehow animated Archer’s action and was the root cause of “gun violence.”

It seems that the White House and media are going with door number three. By focusing on “gun violence,” they are positing that removing guns will eliminate violence. And that “expanded background checks” will reduce the carnage.

While anything is possible, it seems that violent people will always find a way. The Murrah building, destroyed by explosives, 168 killed. A knife attack in a Chinese train station, 29 dead. For evil people, it seems that their goal is more important than their means. By focusing on “gun violence” alone, we are shortsightedly ignoring the broader evil in the human heart.

Violence is violence. Let’s concentrate on that, and the means to control it.

Heavenly intent

Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital is a Catholic institution just outside of Philadelphia, part of the ministry of the Sisters of Mercy. They do much good work, and have done so since the order’s founding in Ireland in 1831.

But bad things can happen to good people, and the Sisters were recently visited by one Richard Plotts. Mr. Plotts has been charged with murder in a sad case which, saints be with us, might have been much worse.

But while heavenly intervention may have had a hand in stopping Plotts’ violence, it was the earthly determination of Dr. Lee Silverman that ended the threat. The facts are simple.

Richard Plotts has a twenty year criminal record including a federal bank robbery charge. Plotts tends to violence and was banned from an emergency homeless shelter for such acts. He had been seeing Dr. Silverman, reportedly, on and off during his entire criminal career for help with violence and mental health issues. (Voluntarily or court-ordered has not been established).

On a recent summer afternoon, Plotts arrived at the hospital an hour early for his appointment with Dr. Silverman. Silverman took Plotts into his office accompanied by Plotts’ caseworker, Theresa Hunt. Loud shouting was heard, followed by multiple shots.

Prosecutors say that Plotts shot Ms. Hunt in the head, killing her instantly. Dr. Silverman took cover behind his desk, then came up with his own firearm, hitting Plotts three times. Plotts, seriously wounded, was then restrained by staffers heroically rushing in to help.

The peace of the institution was shattered, as were the lives of Theresa Hunt’s loved ones.

But it could have been much, much worse. Plotts had thirty nine more rounds in his pocket. "We believe [Plotts] was going to reload that revolver and continue to kill," said District Attorney Jack Whelan.

Those are the facts, but there is more.

• The hospital has a policy prohibiting all but on-duty law enforcement officers from carrying weapons on the premises. 
• This policy is not enforced with armed guards and metal detectors.
• Richard Plotts, a felon, carried an illegal weapon into the hospital.
• Dr. Silverman possessed a concealed weapon, legally permitted, but in violation of hospital policy.
• Theresa Hunt was unarmed and trusted her institution to protect her.

There is much to digest here on philosophy and the various rights of individuals and institutions. It touches on many of the central issues of the gun control debate. Here are some questions to consider.

Do the Sisters of Mercy, a religious organization pure of heart and with peaceful intent, have the right to ban weapons from their hospital campus? Of course they do, just as any of us can ban weapons from our homes or businesses.

Was the ban effective? Obviously not. It is a pluperfect example of a “pretend weapon-free zone.” Real weapon-free zones require metal detectors and armed guards. All who enter a weapon-free zone must consciously give up their right to self defense. So it makes a great difference whether such zone is pretend or real.

Did the Sisters owe a duty to protect Theresa Hunt because of the weapon-free zone they had established? No, she entered it willingly.

If guns could all be magically vaporized, would that have made Richard Plotts peaceful? Unlikely. He has a long history of crime, violence, and mental health issues. There are other means to wreak havoc on the undefended, and he surely would have exploited them.

Did Dr. Silverman have the right to carry his weapon into the hospital? Not according to policy, and he could be fired for that offense. But the hospital has said that it is welcoming him back, and the DA stated that he likely saved many lives in addition to his own.

Difficult questions, but it comes down to this – do we have an individual right to self defense? And, if so, a right to the means to do so? Collectivists tend to argue no, individualists, yes. What do you think?

In this one case, a good guy with a gun did, indeed, stop a bad guy with a gun.