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.

Grandma and her gun

Police officer Melvin Santiago executed by street thug

The horrible tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook in December of 2012 prompted a number of states to tighten regulations on guns. Massachusetts is the latest of these.

Without exception, gun control activists are upset with perceived deficient regulation and are clamoring for more. Advocates are equally perturbed with what they see as infringements on their rights.  In this emotionally laden debate, the media are of little help. From which perspective can we better understand the divide?

First, it is not a coincidence that Democrats and Republicans line up on different sides. Democrats tend to be collectivists and Republicans, individualists, which explains strongly held beliefs on a wide range of topics. Collectivists believe that human happiness can be best attained by conformity – they put the whole first. Individualists take an opposite tack and elevate the individual, believing that social well-being will follow.

Second, we must perceive guns for what they really are. Forget the images of the semi-automatic “assault” rifles and black handguns glorified by Hollywood. These are machines, evolved over many hundreds of years, designed to multiply the force that a human being can bring to bear.  Muscle mass is removed from consideration; a ninety-eight pound grandmother becomes the complete equal of a muscle-bound attacker.

And finally, we must address the issue of violence, which arises from multiple sources. First and foremost is criminal activity perpetrated by that subset of individuals who lack empathy and communal values. To them, a mugging, robbery, or assault is just a day at the office. According to a recent Swedish study, 63% of all violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population. If applied to the US, we would estimate that well over 3 million individuals are in this category.

Next are extreme sociopaths and the criminally insane, those who commit violent acts to fulfill some need in their fantastical worlds. These are few but spectacular: Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine.

Lastly we must take special note of the thuggery in our inner cities. Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Saint Louis top the list, with homicide rates from 34 to 47 per 100,000, on par with many third world countries. Daily we read news accounts of coldblooded killings prompted by territory disputes or minor slights or a desire to be famous. On a recent Sunday, a thug with such a wish executed a rookie police officer. Subsequently killed by police, his shrine is bigger than the slain officer's.

With all this as a stage, how can we understand where we might go? What would satisfy the polar opponents in this question?

Gun control advocates would, in their dreams, completely vaporize guns from the planet. At the very least, they would have us follow the Australian model by confiscating and tightly restricting the private ownership of weapons.

Gun rights supporters, on the other hand, would have each and every citizen (who is not a criminal or insane), freely own and carry a weapon if they so desire.

These two worlds are completely different.

Let’s say, on the first hand, that we could vaporize all guns. This is a mindset that the 98-pound grandmother’s self-defense must be sacrificed to the common good. That by making her vulnerable, occasional losses are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Those on the other side would say that, in a society made of free citizens, Grandma’s right to self defense is inviolable. And that by her having that right, occasional losses due to mistake or misadventure are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Who is right?

Antis, who have conflated the words “gun” and “violence,” think that if guns are eliminated, so too will be the violence.  The evidence points elsewhere. Spectacular knife attacks have become common in China and increasingly so in the US. Suicides would continue apace, via hanging or overdose or high dives. The criminally insane would remain so, and would evolve more devious, evil plots, such as propane explosions or mass poisonings.

Supporters, who believe in the goodness of free citizens, would be disappointed. Humans are imperfect. We suffer losses, desire revenge, some become gradually insane. Murders would continue, lover’s quarrels or jealous rages ending in gunfire. Crimes would continue in spite of the shopkeeper’s shotgun.

Neither side is right to demand perfection; it is an impossible dream. But here is something that we could do: directly address the issues. Quit arguing about prison population and leniency. There are plenty of laws on the books – use them, enforce them, and imprison those who demonstrate a lack of empathy, values, or self control. Thuggery must be abhorred rather than glorified (read the lyrics to “When I feel like it” by Fabolous as a homework assignment). The criminally insane must be treated compassionately; it is time to again fund institutions for their housing and treatment.

These actions, rather than their desired prescriptions, would make neither side happy.
 
Which means that it’s probably the right thing to do.