Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Does U.S. Regionalism Explain the Gun Debate?

Union soldiers fire a volley at Confederate troops during re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg on June 28, 2013.
Union soldiers fire a volley at Confederate troops during re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg on June 28, 2013.
KAREN BLEIER/AFP/GETTY IMAGES


The Deep South, Greater Appalachia and The Far West have the highest rates of deadly assault, but their legislators still resist stricter gun reforms. In April, 12 of the 14 Senators from the seven Deep South states voted against a background checks bill, which has since stunted gun reform progress.

Woodard theorizes that this regional resistance among policymakers and populace depicts the historically rooted value on individual liberties and anti-interventionism.

In the Deep South, the fight over slavery created an ongoing battle against federal powers and a deep strain of anti-federalism which lingers today. Likewise, Appalachia was founded by settlers from war-ravaged areas like Northern Ireland, Northern England and the Scottish 

Lowlands, where people grew familiar to violence as they struggled in a bloody fight for independence against the British. And in the Far West, its settlers were tied to Eastern powers that fought against outside Western intervention.

The Northern regions like Yankeedom and The Midlands, however, experience less gun violence because of their peaceful and religious roots, according to Woodard.

Yankeedom experiences less than two deaths per 100,000 people from gun violence each year and in its six states, 11 of the 12 senators voted in favor of expanded background checks in April.

11 comments:

  1. "Woodard theorizes"

    We seem to see this repeated a lot. In other words he wrote a book where he makes shit up to try to explain why states aren't being reasonable and voting the way the right people think they should.

    "Author Colin Woodard explains in his book, “American Nations” that the United States isn’t one united nation, but actually eleven separate nations with their own historically-rooted values and perspectives."

    He sort of got this one wrong. Perhaps it makes his math easier, or wanted to not have so many chapters, but we really have fifty separate nations. And making it difficult to pass unpopular laws is a good thing.

    "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." --P. J. O'Rourke

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. O'Rourke should know, he's one of the biggest drunks in journalism.

      Delete
    2. You see the word "theorizes" a lot, huh? I doubt that. You just came up with what you thought was a slick way to put down the author because you didn't like what he had to say.

      Delete
  2. Since forty out of fifty states have good gun laws, this thesis doesn't make much sense. But then, Woodard uses phrases like "stunted gun reform progress," so we know what's wrong with his thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you read the difference between the Deep South and Yankeeland, or were you just shootin' off your mouth again with more negative disagreement?

      Delete
    2. I saw it, but so what? Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have excellent gun laws. Once again, because he's reached the conclusion that you like, you don't trouble yourself with getting into the details.

      Delete
    3. You're making my point for me. In spite of those Yankee states with what you call very good laws, the difference between Yankedom and the Deep South is great.

      Delete
    4. Mikeb, your bigotry is well known. You don't have to keep reminding us.

      Delete
    5. So says the Arkansas pseudo-intellectual who gets defensive when we talk about regional differences.

      Delete
  3. You should tag every one of your articles, Bigoted Gun Control Freaks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone of your comments should be tagged, lying coward.

      Delete