AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
After school dice club television show7/30/2023 If you are in a federation governed by a federal government, where any kind of federal legislation has to occur with the consensus of Congress, which is carefully designed to make sure that no one region back in the early republic could dominate the other regions, so you have to have a massive consensus between regions. So what does this tell us about the ability, or inability, of the country to do something about the level of gun violence that we see? If I were a gun researcher, I would wonder exactly these things. Why should Boston be safe and some of these other cities not? I'm sure there's a reason somewhere out there. Boston has a terrible history of racial segregation and discrimination. In that sense, and in not very many other senses, the current Republican narrative about gun violence is correct, that there are cities like Chicago and Baltimore and Philly and Kansas City, and Oakland, that have these high rates.īut then again, there are other northern cities that don't, you know, Seattle, and Boston. But when you looked at the map, you could see that the concentration of the problem, when sliced that way, was a select group of hotspot cities. And in fact, the Deep South and Greater Appalachia suddenly became relatively safe. In other words, those northern regions that had previously been the safest. But suddenly the most dangerous places for gun homicide were the Left Coast and Yankeedom in the midlands. When you looked at Black victims in those big cities, New Netherland was still very safe. That region is actually quite safe in terms of gun homicides per capita, but incredibly bad in terms of gun suicides, which is not the pattern you see in other places, which opens up a whole another set of questions. It's seven-fold, eight-fold safer than the Deep South.Īnd there were some that were surprising, like in the far West, which is the interior West, but not the Pacific coastal strip, and not the areas in the Southwest that were effectively colonized by New Spain. You know, we looked at overall gun deaths, we looked at gun suicides and homicides, we looked at just white victim gun homicides and suicides from one region to another, we looked at just cities, and so on.Īnd however you slice and dice it, you saw a two- and threefold difference between Yankeedom - which is the greater New England space to which Maine belongs, but which spreads out over upstate New York, the old Western Reserve of Connecticut, in Ohio, and the upper Great Lakes states - you know, two- and threefold safer than the Deep South.Īnd in terms of the Deep South and New Netherland - that Dutch-settled area which is roughly analogous today to Greater New York City - that Greater New York City is the safest place on this continent, by far, no matter how you look at it. We discovered incredible variations, two- and threefold differences in the various indices. We knew going into it that gun violence and indeed many indices of violence have enormous variations geographically. Gratz: Well, when it comes to gun violence, what did your analysis find? And that stayed, you know, it was built into a lot of institutions and into the religious framework and into the culture that the rest of us arrived to later and had to deal with as sort of the facts on the ground. Woodard: With each of these societies, there was this set of assumptions laid down about who we are, what is the good life, what's the relationship between individual liberty and the common good, between church and state, and so on, that were laid down by the initial founders as sort of the dominant assumptions and ethos. This interview have been lightly edited for length and clarity. And as he told Maine Public's Irwin Gratz, those regions have measurably different rates of gun violence:
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |