Mocking the "Nose Hill Gentleman" Does Not Constitute a Serious Debate About Guns

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the furor that erupted after the now-infamous letter to the editor from the man now dubbed the "Nose Hill Gentleman"

The concept of citizens being allowed to carry firearms for self-defence is indeed a controversial one, and it strikes me that if one were looking to discredit the idea, one might write something similar to the now-infamous letter penned by one Walt Wawra.
The Nose Hill Park incident and its dramatic retelling on this pages have generated so much media attention in the past week that it might seem superfluous to recount any of the details here.
Nevertheless, it is certainly worth noting that while Wawra’s letter was ostensibly bemoaning the lack of legislation allowing for firearms to be carried for self-defence purposes, he justified his argument based on an encounter that seemed to be so benign as to call into question the author’s suitability as a firearms owner in the first place.
Of course, Wawra is a veteran police officer back home in Kalamazoo, Mich., and so his career has mandated the carrying of a weapon on a daily basis for many years.
Why, then, would anyone — let alone a veteran police officer — feel that “Been to the Stampede yet?” is sufficient provocation to brandish a weapon?
It was two young men who approached Wawra and his wife in Nose Hill Park and asked (aggressively, we’re told) if they’d “been to the Stampede yet.” The encounter abruptly ended with Wawra’s brusque rejoinder: “Gentlemen, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye.”
Had Wawra’s letter simply been about what he perceived to be an unpleasant and potentially hostile encounter while visiting Calgary, perhaps more people would be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is possible, after all, that the two young men had a more sinister intent (although that wouldn’t explain why they were so easily vanquished by Wawra’s stern tone).
However, since the letter was framed as an argument in support of concealed gun carrying laws, the debate and discussion have morphed into something much larger.
Certainly for those who support such freedoms, the letter is cringe worthy. If Wawra had described being beaten or robbed or worse, then his argument would have been quite powerful and compelling.
The timing of Wawra’s letter has been another major catalyst for the media frenzy that followed. Coming on the heels of the mass shooting in a Colorado movie theatre, there was already a great deal of discussion and debate around gun laws in both the U.S. and Canada.
Even on these pages, there has been much hand-wringing about the lax gun laws in the U.S., levels of violence in the U.S., and the perceived American obsession with firearms. And then along comes Wawra, who seems to embody everything that these critics see as the problems facing America.
But if the debate is about gun laws and gun violence, then Wawra is not the only stereotype we are dealing with here.
It is true that, generally, the United States has looser gun laws than Canada and, generally, has a much higher homicide rate than we do. But that is an overly simplistic summation of the situation, and it hides some deeper truths.
Broadly speaking, the homicide rate in Canada has been declining for the past three decades — the same, though, is true of the U.S. The rates in both countries have fallen more or less in unison during that time, despite some rather stark differences in both gun laws and approaches to criminal justice.
Furthermore, there are some considerable differences between U.S. states in terms of gun laws and homicide rates. If we wish to speak of concealed gun carrying laws, then one might note that such laws exist in many states which have murder rates similar to — or even lower than — Canada’s.
The mocking of Walt Wawra certainly feeds into the smug sense of superiority on the part of some Canadians, and it also feeds into the stereotypes that others seem to have about those gun-crazy Americans and their blood-soaked streets.
If, however, you wish to make the case that citizens should not be able to carry firearms for the purposes of self-defence, merely sneering at Wawra’s perceived paranoia does not constitute a serious argument.