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.

Guns: Finding Common Ground in the Debate

There is nothing more contentious than the ongoing debate on gun rights versus gun control. Proponents of individual liberty hew to the position that honest citizens have a God-given right to keep and bear arms. Advocates of stricter control fear the carnage that results from the prevalence of guns.

What makes the debate contentious is that both positions have merit.

There are numerous examples of the evils wrought with guns. Sandy Hook. Aurora. Columbine. Just the names evoke horrific memories, visions of grief-stricken parents and grievously wounded survivors.

A recent in-depth investigation by the Providence Journal described the destructive path of a single community gun “in the hands of teenage boys and young men who passed it around and used it to wreak havoc throughout Providence.”  Over a six month period in 2012, six shootings, four fatalities, several  wounded, familial loss and grief.

In Attleboro, more recently, shots were fired in a road rage incident. Property was damaged but no one killed nor injured. This was pure luck. The suspect, a heavily tattooed ex-con, languishes in jail awaiting a dangerousness hearing, the outcome of which may be self-evident.

On the other side of the debate is the defensive use of guns.

In Chicago’s Logan Square last week, a Uber driver happened upon a chilling scene as a young man began spraying bullets into a crowd. The driver drew his licensed handgun and fired, wounding and stopping the assailant. The driver was not charged because, according to the Assistant State’s Attorney, “the driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others.”

In an earlier case reported by the Chicago Tribune, a licensed citizen “shot and wounded an armed man who had fired into a crowd on Chicago's Far South Side.” (Concealed carry was only recently legalized in Illinois, the last state to do so).

Just this week in Baltimore, a shopkeeper with a shotgun protected a reporter who was being accosted by an assailant. The reporter, Justin Fenton, described on CNN that a man in a hoodie “Maced” him in the head and demanded his cellphone. Fenton retreated to the protection of the armed shopkeeper and was later able to safely depart the area.

Defensive gun use (DGU) is the measure of societal benefit that arises from the positive use of guns to dissuade or stop murder, assault, robbery, rape, carjacking, home invasion, and so on. The statistics on DGU vary widely depending on who is providing them. Estimates of annual DGU range from 1 to 1.25 million instances per year at the high end to 55,000 to 80,000 at the low end.

It should be no surprise that the high-end estimates come from gun rights proponents and the low-end from gun-control proponents. (The true number is almost certainly somewhere in the middle).

Where does this leave us in the great debate?

First, we must recognize the true causal factors in gun crimes. Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine all were perpetrated by sociopaths. The Providence single-gun shootings were all committed by criminals. The Attleboro road-rage shooter is an ex-con with a lengthy record and obvious anger management issues. Of note, none of the aforementioned are concealed carry permit holders.

In contrast, the defensive gun use cases referenced above all involved legally owned weapons that were utilized in a legal manner.

It is not surprising that guns rights advocates react in dismay when opponents attempt to further restrict rights rather than addressing root causes.

It is also not a surprise that gun control advocates continue to seek tighter controls. The Rhode Island legislature is debating a bill to ban the carry of concealed weapons on school grounds even by a permit holder. (This is spite of no instance of a school shooting having been committed by a permit holder, and several documented instances of a shooting being stopped by a permit holder).

So like any negotiation between diametrically opposed sides, the hopeful and the fearful, the way forward is to find common ground.

Neither camp should protest if, for instance, we posted signs in shopping malls stating that “Illegal guns are not permitted.” Nor should there be much controversy on either side if we were to redouble efforts to identify sociopaths and keep guns from their hands. There also should be no argument about getting illegal guns off the streets and putting their criminal possessors in prison.

There is plenty of common ground. Let’s start there.

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.

A Canticle for Hadiya

Hadiya Pendleton

The story of Hadiya Pendleton is heart rending. The 15-year-old girl was known as a star student, a loving daughter and big sister, and a talented majorette. That latter aptitude resulted in her performing, along with her King College Prep High School team, at President Obama’s inauguration, an honor of which she was deservedly proud.

But several days later, on January 29^th, she was senselessly killed by a purported gang member in a south-side Chicago park. Hadiya and her friends had taken shelter from the rain under a canopy in Harsh Park when Michael Ward, 18, allegedly opened fire on the group in a tragic case of mistaken identity – he thought they were rival gang members when in fact they were just a bunch of kids out celebrating after completing their mid-year exams.

The pathos of Hadiya’s death was overwhelming to her family and the community. President Obama recognized the event in his State of the Union address, remembering Hadiya while calling for stricter gun controls.

But what was it that made Ward, just a few years older than Hadiya, think it was acceptable to indiscriminately spray a group of young people with gunfire? Ward was in the company of one Kenneth Williams, 20, who had been shot in the arm by another gang last year. In his confession, Ward claimed that he was seeking revenge against that gang. What is it that allows young men to shoot each other with impunity in a city that registered over 2400 shootings and nearly 500 homicides in 2012? And this in a city with some of the toughest gun laws on the books?

There is a theory that addresses this and it has to do with “certainty of punishment.”  While it might seem odd, it turns out that criminals are very savvy about applying economic risk/benefit analysis to their decisions. Criminals calculate (intuitively, as their actual math skills are typically lacking) an “expected value” of punishment by applying the probability of being punished to the extent of the actual (not on paper) punishment.

For instance, while the law might call for 5 years in prison for carrying an illegal gun, they observe that the probability of being caught is very low. Hence, they calculate that the “expected value” of the punishment is far less than 5 years.  Further, even if caught, they see that the typical punishment is only a year of probation with no prison time at all. So in spite of the seemingly tough sanction against carrying an illegal gun, the criminal calculates that the “certainty of punishment” is actually very, very low. Hence, in their warped but canny minds, the benefits of carrying a gun far outweigh its costs.

All this is actually going on in Chicago. While having very tough laws on the books, the cops are dismayed to see offenders they manage to apprehend back on the streets within days. Williams, who provided the gun that killed Hadiya, should have been in prison for parole violations following an earlier gun offense. The cops blame prosecutors and judges, but the judges blame state and local budgets that limit available prison beds. So it comes down to a type of “guns vs. butter” argument – social welfare and pension spending vs. cops on the street and prison beds.

In our zeal to pass new gun laws, it might be worthwhile to ponder how effectively existing laws are being enforced, how certain the punishment for violations are, and how severely the actual punishments are adjudicated. Criminals must assess the “certainty of punishment” as being very, very high if we want to change their behavior.

In the case of Hadiya, her assailants’ long criminal records give sad testimony to ineffective execution of the law. Another toothless law on the books would not have helped, no matter how good it made us feel.

Our murderous young sons

James Eagan Holmes

Saturday before last was Gun Appreciation Day. Tens of thousands of gun owners turned out in cities across the country to rally in support of their 2^nd amendment rights. Certainly, you heard of the outbreak of gun attacks perpetrated at these gatherings. (No, we didn’t either). That’s because honest citizens with legally owned guns are not the problem.

But something is definitely going on – our young men are murdering us.

Nehemiah Griego, 15
Dylan Klebold, 17
Eric Harris, 18
Robert Hawkins, 19
Adam Lanza, 20
Tyler Peterson, 20
Jared Loughner, 22
Seung-Hui Cho, 23
James Holmes, 24

This is a partial list of deranged young men who have succumbed to their demons, murdering their fellow humans in a sociopathic rage often punctuated by suicide. In addition to their gender and age, they seem to have another thing in common – photographs reveal them as being disturbingly similar, with pin-point thousand-yard-stare eyes surrounded by stark white scelerae. What is going on here? How do we discover the ultimate cause?

Our culture has changed; that’s a certainty. Closer to the middle of the last century, guns were not vilified as today. A pickup truck with deer rifles in the rear window gun-rack was common, parked on Main Street or even in the high school parking lot. No one was terrified, no one was disturbed. Farmers strode into the Agway or hardware store with their “mouse gun” on their hip and no one called the cops. No need, for these were honest citizens who did not present a threat.

Fast forward fifty years and it’s all different. Now, monsters in human disguise mow down school children. Gang bangers and drug warriors battle with each other and innocent bystanders. The carnage in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington (centers of the strictest gun controls) is enormous. What is going on?

Here are some things that have changed over the last fifty years:

- The breakdown of the traditional family; millions of young men raised without male role models

- Government has become the defacto father of these unhappy young men; handouts stultifying their self-worth; gangs becoming their families

- Extreme gore and violence is endemic in the media, movies, and video games

- The war on drugs has fueled an enormous, lucrative market for drugs which is fiercely defended with deadly violence

- Our mental health system has changed drastically, with long-term hospitalization replaced by socialization, leaving potentially murderous patients living in the community

So when you hear someone decrying “gun violence”, you will know that they are already on the wrong track. The problem is violence, it doesn’t matter what kind. For instance, did you know that more murders are committed by striking implements (clubs, hammers, etc.) than by all kinds of rifles, “assault” or otherwise? We will make no real progress until we begin understanding, and countering, the underlying causes of violence. 

The lost souls sacrificed to our murderous young men demand nothing less.