it's one of the things that foreign people don't understand about america is culture. i'm not sure i ever fully understood it. and yet by the time i finish the book had been in the country for 12 years and i had one foot in and one foot out. i have to american children, my wife is american. for a long time i assumed that i was going to live here. in the end i did move back to england, and so i had skin in the game. >> host: let's go back a little bit. because i've lived abroad also and usually i do end up getting a lot of questions about all kinds of things that are uniquely american. coming into the project, the first initial long speech you gave, what was your sense of american icon culture? >> guest: i think i hadn't

quite understood just, i assume that mass shootings which are the things that get most attention, that that was how much people, particularly young people, died. and i didn't really, i hadn't really given enough thought to the aggregate number of people around the country who would be killed in this, in this way. and so the disparate nature of accidental shootings, that toddler who finds a gun behind a pillow when his dad is asleep, friends who are fighting, accidents, all of these kind of car okay, so this is going on all the time, and so that featured that you see in the news every two or three days,

you know, just before the weather. and meanwhile, in such and such a place, this is going on all the time every day. so it forces a kind of readjustment of your understanding of where you are. >> host: right. i find it interesting that you said you were endeavoring to create context, right, because we do have a lot of official reports on crime, the fbi, the cia, everyone at doj, numbers everywhere. but what i say doing meticulously was trying to figure out what is it about these environments. can you talk about the context that you found? >> guest: so 10 children were shot dead that day, which was november 23, 2013. children and teens. and with each one what i try to do, there was a fact of the death and wasn't trying to

litigate their death, maybe he was walking from the east to the west, you know. >> host: it was a forensics. >> guest: it wasn't csi. but then, in all these cases it was a context, and sometimes there are a broader thing. but everywhere there was a context, what else is going on? who else can i talk to? so just to give a couple of examples. in newark where a young man was shot dead. these come into his apartment with his girlfriend, he shot dead. it's assumed that killer thought he was somebody else, and it was drug related. and they thought, he had a red hoodie. they were looking for someone with a ready. so then you look at where he was

shot dead, and a block up housing projects near where he lives, and you, where his mother lived. that's where you were shot dead. this is where he grew up, and next door is a factory that's been closed down. you start looking at this, the statistics, and you see the painful effects of being -- industrialization, and in that context, selling drugs becomes an occupation of one like it into your economics, drugs, drug gangs are up more than come as like a classic american corporation. in "freakonomics" it's compared to mcdonald's. and so just to say not to excuse anything but just this is what was going on around that time and place.

and for every young person in this book, there are those broader things that one can say, not to excuse, sometimes not even to explain, but just to describe that these deaths do not generally fall out and die. they are kind of a set of circumstances have collided and coincided to the impossible. >> host: that's one of those myths about the inner-city, quarter and quote. but he also found similar circumstances in suburbia where just access to guns. >> guest: well, right. i mean, sometime to think how many. one of the chili, there was only one who was killed in a rural area, but then there are a couple who were killed in either suburbs and small towns, very

small town. yeah, basically nobody is immune to this. there is a sense that people should be. there is a battery general says that areas, low income areas of color, where people of color live, that that is when things like this happen, and that if a young person is shot dead in one of those areas, it doesn't challenge your understanding of the way america works but confirms it. you speak to a journalist and you say dg followed that up? it's not so surprising that someone would get shot in that area. and so it becomes not news. there's that phrase, when dog bites man, that's not news. it's when man bites dog that is news. but after a while people are being shot in an area just ask, who owns these dogs and why do these dogs keep biting the same

people and what can we do about it? i think one of the reporters said you become desensitized to it. the people living in areas do not become desensitized, it's their children at risk. >> host: i'm going to read from the samuel bright chapter because this really caught my eye. you said that the indifference towards violence that plagues some areas is less a byproduct of allied neglect than unconscious own nation board from the dead weight of power and privilege. that makes it a dark in america and in his obit that's a pretty big finger you are pointing. >> guest: it is. it is, but, i mean, you know, if it fits wear it. i'm talking mostly about the media, and that if you're in a media that is overwhelming white

and wealthier and, therefore, is not likely to live in areas like this, then it's not that you think i don't care about these people that you just think well, you don't know anybody who has been shot. you don't, this isn't happening to you. it's not happening in your neighborhood. it's happening over there and so that dead weight of privilege, of being wealthier, of being white, of having a university educational all the things that kind of coalesced to make you who you are, leaves you thinking, well, this is what happens to people like that. and after a while the people like that, also the way that some americans are not just

journalists even, it's not just that they don't know, it's a different species. but in the chapter the samuel brightmon, one of the first comments after his death, the family was walking down the road and he shot dead and after -- pleasant grove in dallas, which is a kind of poor black and latino area. and with a representation for being violent. and so you know, i know where my children are all the time, and you got ask what were his parents doing that they don't know where he is. like he's running, like his mother is not taking control. and then you find out the situation. they drank cocoa that night. they played uno. the worst thing samuel did was cheat at who know. they watched we're the millers and inside the desired to walk his friend didn't sell home, did

themselves grandmothers who lives six minutes away. the next day been so was taking his grandma to church. that's what they're doing when they got shot. it wasn't that his mother didn't know where she was. he was a sweet kid who didn't really know anybody in the area. who had no kind of affiliation of any kind really in that area, but the first place the summary goes is well, you know, there must be a reason why that kid was shot. and i'm going to say is that there's. >> host: that brings me to wonder things i notice about the book which is that you really challenge respect billy politics. you really challenge the notion that things like this shouldn't happen in some places and to some people but that, of course, we expect them to happen to people in other places. and that's one of the themes that comes out a lot when you talk to young activists, the fact that we do need to talk

about why is it so easy to dismiss some people's death in some of the violence that goes on. i want to redo i get another piece on this that i thought really captured can be right in the kenneth mills-tucker chapter, this shouldn't happen to people like this, and then you say that because of sandy hook, right, because that was many children, six adults, that began to transform people, that the elevation of the worthy victim has this nifty bearing on life, someone of his most affected by gun violence, a black, brown and poor would underline themselves with the gun-control movement. i thought he gets it. when i saw that. so can you explain how you came to that realization? >> guest: yet. so kenneth mills-tucker was shot in indianapolis, an african-american, less than a week away from his 20th

birthday. and four or five months later there is a convention there and, therefore, the gun-control movement comes in every town for gun safety. i'm trying to find can this folks think maybe they will be, there was a pro-conference all about gun control. now, a quarter of indianapolis is black and half of the gun victims in indianapolis are blocked. and also this week's to somebody from india with. there's no one there from indianapolis. there's a white lady from karbala, a very wealthy suburb and she talks about sandy hook and mama bear protecting her babies. he kind of thing who are you protecting them from what you are probably protecting them from people like kenneth. and i think for the gun-control

movement to have a sense of the urgency and relevance, it has to be embedded in the communities most likely to be affected by gun violence. those are black and working class communities and latino communities. they are also places where african-americans and latinos are more likely to be criminalized, that african-americans don't use any drug apart from crack anymore than white americans. that's why americans are more likely to use, and much more likely to go to jail for the. the fact someone has a criminal record is not actually some kind of neutral statistic or some neutral indicator that is how the system works. if you are only looking for innocents and babes, then you're not going to find in those communities. and so you have to move from, i think, and narrative that says

this shouldn't happen to kids like this, to this shouldn't happen to kids, carried. -- period. and have an understanding of why some kids end up in the places they do, which is schools and infrastructure win, either, lack of day care. which is why i think that it's not possible to only talk about guns. this is a kind of broader societal thing which counts people out, dehumanizes them. that means when a life is taken, well, that's already been accounted for. but yeah, i think that there is a real problem. once you start saying well, he was an a student, then there are those suggestions where there's a greater where it would be worthy for them to be killed or someone tweeted to me the other

day after trinity day was shot dead, the daughter of the olympic sprinter, and he said she was out at 3:00 in the morning. how much of an innocent victim why she? then you think, what kind of the did you think it would be appropriate for a 15 year old girl to be shot dead backs 11, 12? what's the curfew after which these areas just become a shooting galleries and everybody who was killed there is guilty? >> host: right. that action is a great way to segregate the question that i have for you, and i promise not to ask any hard policy questions. but there is, especially in academia and the social sciences, that is a line of thought that says we should declare gun violence a national health crisis, and a sign that cdc $100 million, go study it, come back with a real tangible data and real tangible and

actionable items. i have listened to you talk about the confluence of the characteristics, right? that lead to organ result in, and then thinking maybe that's an academic. isn't that how it would happen? >> guest: one stage, gary in chicago has a map of where they gun deaths are taking place and that they're concentrated in the south and west turkey send it to a decent is exactly the same kind of map you have for cholera or -- he was an epidemiologist. and cunning, cdc used to do research into, because it's the biggest killer of black men, the biggest killer of black youth under the age of 19, kerry did.

and it's the second biggest killer of all kids under the age of 19 after traffic. >> host: and it is 32000 deaths a year which is unimaginable. it's a city. it's like a city disappearing every time. >> guest: yet. and so then the question is well, what should we do about that? there is a line of thought thatd do nothing about that because guns are rights and i that the second amendment and that's it. what if one doesn't subscribe only to that view, and and you worry about this, then there has to be researched as to why this happened and why it happens to these people as opposed to these people, and these people as opposed to those people. the cdc used to do that, and then the nra lobbied hard

against it saying that it was treating guns as a health issue, that it's not a health issue. and now they don't. >> host: right. >> guest: my response to that is only for those people who don't want to do it, i think that they shouldn't do it, then tell me some of the way, some other meaningful way in which you stop these children dying. >> host: right guess but i don't want to argue with you about the second amendment because i don't think they'll ultimate go anywhere. i will argue about these kids, which my kids are american. i don't want him running these risks. and even if they were not, it's unacceptable and morally intolerable toll. this is what you don't want to do. what do you want to do? >> host: that actually brings

me to come you say in your book the gun lobby, that candidacy is need a better story, right? the fundamental argument of this is my second amendment right. it's not applicable. it's not the relevant. we don't live in those times so basically comes down to marketing. so you are a professional storyteller. what story would you advise them to or if they asked you to consult with them? >> guest: the gun lobby people, i feel the gun-control people hav have a bigger problem actually. the gun lobby people can say, is what they say, when you say i don't understand, explain. do you have your wife? are you married? do you have children yes. imagine someone breaks into your house and shoot your wife, kill your kids. what are you going to do? are going to wait and call the police? and there they have an appeal to masculinity, vigilante.

culture, homestead. you know, which actually has a lot of homes in american mythology, who men are. most people who are killed by guns actually shoot themselves. after that you are most likely to be killed by someone you know. actually what they're saying is are you married? then watch out for your wife, she may kill you. [laughter] >> guest: so they have the kind of narrative that is embedded in many ways in american culture. which we can talk about whether we like that near to or not but it is found in homes with of the kind of broader things. i don't think -- i think the

gun-control people have a bigger problem because they talk about background checks which i think, you know, i think that's a sensible thing. even if you are abiding by the second amendment religiously and have a particular interpretation of it, it still says a well regulated militia. background checks are popular and -- >> host: a waiting period in. >> guest: all that kind of stuff. but it doesn't add up to, i think america has to imagine itself differently, and as a kind of more compassionate collective kind of country. and i think, i do think one way that one might do this is to say look, we are a modern country with the medieval problem. you know, we are, this doesn't happen anywhere else. i do think that might be a

powerful message, but i also think one that takes seriously as a collective endeavor, not just a family, not just a person, raising children, that there are certain things that children need. they need space. they need decent education. they need youth centers. they need these things. one woman i spoke to on the south side of chicago who is a physician, she said, well, the way that parents in these neighborhoods, they are top, they put them in a cocoon. they drive them everywhere. they don't let them out. you know, they drive them to school. they drive them home. if they are in any afterschool think of a drive-in fare, they drive them back.

first of all, if you have the time and energy and resources to do that, you probably don't live in that area. but secondly, they would be taking children's youth away from them in order to keep them alive. so you have someone, and i go into some detail in the last chapter like george bush when he asked about drugs and cocaine and other things. what i was young and irresponsible i was young and irresponsible. that's a good lie. that's a good lie and influence is good for you, george. david cameron, the british prime minister and boris johnson were at a supper club called the bullington club. they would get dressed, bow tie and tails. they would go to a restaurant. they would eat their fill and get very drunk. they would trash the restaurant the they would pay for everything in cash in full. but this was part of being in this club. now, when you are rich you can

do that. and maybe one of them will spend a night in the south but it's all part of, you know. these kids don't have that luxury. that could be you debt. you decide to walk your friend home, late at night, that could be you. it's not a question of you getting into a bad crowd and maybe you start taking marijuana over, you know, maybe you have bad relation, you know, a bad relationship, you could die. so the margins are narrow. the risks are great. these are our american children. i was just on a radio program where somebody said, if you took four or five cities out of america, this whole problem would kind of be reduced.

i like him if he took four or five cities out of america, it won't be america anymore. you take chicago, st. louis, new york, l.a., detroit. what are you left with? not that the rest of america isn't important, but the notion that, well, you know, let's just imagine america without these places. why would you? why would you want to? >> host: because by now there's lot of warped nostalgia for an america -- that was mostly imaginary and very restricted to a certain segment of the population. geography though. i think you find geography can be misleading for some of the reasons you just enumerated. so let's talk a little bit about you and the mapping of this book at the geography. is a journalist, i know, there's a thousand choices you have to

make before you write this. so how did the geography, location, city for several, all about of the basque country, how did that play into it? >> guest: they chose the kids. so then my challenge was, first of all, to evoke this space, whatever the space was to kind of, to bring it to life as a reader, but also been to reduce it in some ways to its statistical kind of definition. so to be, and the range was quite substantial, you know. so rural michigan, tyler dunn,

he was shot on a dirt road. it is dark and rural. and tyler, that's the only place where people know is -- that area, they are all going hunting and the churches have dinners for hunting widows, for the wise of the hunters because they are all of. you compare that with houston where edwin rajo was killed and yet the peculiar courtyards were built in the '70s during the oil boom and they were like, well, the hipsters didn't exist then, but for kind of yonge wealthy people, yuppies i guess they would've been called in, and they had this goes in them and they were, swimming pools and he would be given a free vcr or when they took a flat.

no children were allowed. and then the oil crash comes and they said okay, this issue is going to become low-income housing and so people like edward whose mothers undocumented, come to live in those areas. they become dominated by gangs of the pool is still there. it's kind of full of green gunk but it is still there. i think the disco is now kind of a laundry room. anyhow, so these very, very qaeda different spaces, each time kind of trying to find the history of them, san jose where one boy is killed, you know, mapping how different places, you know, how the spanish and the mexico america, how, you

know, has changed hands. but then also to give a sense of, just like, you know what? in this area of san jose even though it's kind of working-class latino folks, a house is worth six times a house in new york. this is a big country. and the landscape, both physical and social, demographic, political, economic is very, very diverse. and hopefully that comes through in the book, is, if the day is a character in a book but also this kind of vast american landscape. >> host: that definitely comes through. the thought about neighbors. i'm always fascinated. i'm an immigrant myself and -- >> guest: where are you from? >> host: the dominican

republic. where are you really from? but i grew up in new york city in the late 80s. a neighborhood where we begin at that point was mostly latinas, dominicans and puerto ricans but then later it was a lot of mexicans. now it is being gentrified. but a lot of the same problems that were there in the '60s and '70s remained in pockets, right. they are less notable -- noticeable now. i would ask you about, was a using geography play such a role in that it can't ignore the population and maintain some of these violent identifiers, right? ..

as many as possible of the degrees are gang-related. well, one can argue on one level that maybe seven of these deathers are gang-related of the ten, insofar as one or both of the people involved, know, the assailant and the victim, were in a gang. and the person is dead. you can say that's a gang-related shooting. but actually, if both people -- if one of the people is in a

gang and the other one isn't, and they're messing around with a gun and got shot, that's not a gang-related murder. that's a murder in which one person is in a gang. but they're in same gang anyway, you know, or -- but, yeah, they're friends. if a child -- in san jose, he lives in an area that is latino, i think the color is red there they're identified with. they say he was not wearing red. he was wearing black but a friend was wearing red, walking down a road. he is wearing black, his friend is wearing red, and they shoot him. is that gang-related? to extent that it seems from the person who is accused, they may

be from a rival gang and they shot at someone who looked like they were from an opposing gang. nothing to do with -- pedro wasn't wearing red. is that gang-related or a stray bullet? and that most of these are complicated, actually, and that same gang -- just not really thinking about it. and a lot of these kids grow up in gangs in the same way that if you're in the soviet union you would be a member of the communist party, or if you were in iraq, the baath party, the kind of -- you -- in the gang dominated the block where you live, and so everybody has some kind of relationship to the gang. now, it could be that you have a completely minimal relationship

to the gang but you wear blue socks or whatever you have to do just to kind of be like, okay, leave me alone, or definitely don't wear red. whatever. it could be that you say, you know, i'm against gangs and never going to do anything to do with a gang. then you still have to live there, and how are you going to live there? so, it's not like some affiliation that -- they don't hand out membership cards and people pay their dues. don'twork like that. and so -- doesn't work like that. so, to me, when i see the term "gang-related" i understand it differently. i want to say to people, well, what is the relationship between the murder and the gang? and what is the relationship, most particularly, between the victim and the gang? because, let's say i'm walking down the road.

don't belong to a gang, and a gang -- >> host: but you're wearing red. >> guest: i'm wearing red and somebody shoots me, and they say that gang-related. well, how does that relate to me? and this is how an awful lot of these deaths are not, i think -- their less likely to be pursued by the police, less likely to be covered by the press and are more likely to be dismissed by the general public as something that happens to people like that who do things like that. and what i hope comes out in the book is, like, well, these are not -- these kids are not that different for the most part from the kind of kids that you know, that mind craft, call of duty,

drug experimentation, girls in a window -- not mowing the lawn when their dad asked them to. duck dynasty is a big thing for the younger kids. twitter, facebook, these are america's children, and if you can dismiss them, then you are dismissing the future. >> host: let's talk about gang affiliation because i am learning as i write more about what you suggested that it's actually a convenient term that allows adults mostly to codify punishment. for example, in san jose, california, in the entire state of california, they have this thing called gang enhancement. so if you were charged with a crime that is somehow related to being in a gang, there are automatic enhancements, an eye

ronishing term which means addition punishment and if you are charged misdemeanor, that means six months probation, the minute they're able to tag it to a gang-related activity it becomes minimum three years and the judge has no ability to lessen the sentence bus it's now been legislated the gang enhancements. so what did you find in terms of the basically there is an abyss between what gang-related means in real life and what "gang-related for or any other codified language means in the legal system or the way that's utilized to hand out punishment? what i found is you can do anything you want in that town. you can say this person was wearing red and they mean that maybe about gangs, might be about laundry.

you don't know. don't know. and al -- like a pretend thing. a couple of the parents, including pedro, justin, they're watching to see how much red or how much blue they're wearing, and talk about hiding certain colors, and basic clothing, and that for the kids sometimes it's like, well, i am going to have to wear some red in order to get through the day. so it's not like there isn't something going on. the question is, if you're going to try to codify it, then you're going to need some rules, and as soon as you start applying the rules, things are going to fall apart. why is that kid wearing red in a gang and that kid wearing red not in a gang? are we in a place where wearing red is illegal?

or that holding your fingers in a certain way is -- >> host: a gang sign. >> guest: yeah. or is kind of a suspicion-proof to put someone away. then comes the second thing, which is -- the book doesn't really go into this, apart from insofar as gun -- gang related becomes a slur, but it's not like if you put them in prison you keep them away from gangs. actually, prison has a gang culture all of its own and actually that would be a way to cement their connection and relationship to gangs. so, a lot of these things, criminal justice enhancements,

much like using the second amendment as a crutch, they don't really engage with the issue, which is why are children joining these violent organizations that are linked to criminal activity? some would have -- not just racial or ethnicity, not unique to america. but why are they doing it and what could provide them, what could be do to stop this happening as opposed to, how do we punish them? get to the root problem. >> host: i want to talk to you about your methodology because i had some questions i was like, oh, i wonder if i would have made the same choice. for example, kenneth mill tucker's family said they didn't want to talk to you, didn't want you contacting them, and you chronicle all that really well.

so i was able to follow you through the constant rejection basically. but ultimately you decided to write about him. so, i thought, okay, as i was reading it, i would have made the same choice? would you have written about him? >> host: yes. >> guest: i think that i wrote about him from what was in public record. and they never said "i," i mean, i found his grandparents by matching their names to people in the -- in white pages in indianapolis, and then looking for -- tucker was a fairly common name but i look -- america is officially segregated and you can think, where do the black people live? i will try here. so i found the number, i called them.

they were actually kind of quite up for an initial conversation. they gave me his father's number. and then i made the mistake, i think, of calling his father. should have texted him. of course i watched him offguard, asking to write about has son, and he never called me back. never said no. said i'll call you back and never did. and then the grandparents, when i came to indianapolis for the nra convention, i called them a couple times, and then the called me and said, don't call again. so, first of all they didn't say, don't do this. and secondly, even if they had, all of the thing is wrote about were in public records and still in the public records, his

tweeter feed, facebook page, an arrest warrant, and the newspaper clipping and the incident report. he's already been written about. already exists publicly. and i think the issue for me is, do you treat these people with respect? more tricky is another child who -- one parent does talk to me, they give me the number of the other parent, and the other parent leaves a blistering message on the phone. i'm going to get my lawyer. and you are writing this book to make money off my child, and -- just how dare you, and i'm not even filling filling in the more colorful language.

my feeling about it was -- i mean, first of all, probably a record. and secondly, one of the parents have spoken to me already, and i did the same thing for every parent. i would present them with a request, and i would say, i hear your child died. would like to know how they lived. i would like to know who they were. anything that you would like to tell me about them issue would like to hear itch would give them a copy of the piece i did in 2007, where possible i would give them a copy of my previous -- my last book, which was about martin luther king's dream speech, and i would say, this is who i am. would you like to talk? and that's what i did with this child's -- one of the child's parents and they said, yeah, and gave me the other parents number and they were like, hell, no.

so, once again i felt that -- i don't feel entitled to any of these -- to the testimony of the parents, but i think that things that are in the public domain are already exist, and then the question is whether you treat them respectfully or not. >> host: you must have had reames and boxes of documents and all kinds of things. what is the process of, like, sifting. >> making this critical choice for the sake of the story? >> guest: that was difficult. that was difficult because there are things that you read that might be embarrassing for the family. things you learn that might be difficult, and that you have to

weigh, is this important to the story? is this hurtful to the family? how important, how hurtful, what aim going to do with that? for every one where it was possible i would send them their quote. this is what you said. if thought there was something that were -- in a couple of case i thought there was something that they might be unhappy about. i said, i'm giving you this and its okay with you? and then otherwise you have to trust that you understand people's dignity, and that these are in a couple of -- in a few ways these are vulnerable people. they lost their child, they're not used to being in the limelight, and so you have to

proceed with caution. i don't think i was cavalier with any of their stories. their feedback i've had from four of the families now, is that they are happy with the treatment that their kid have got. some of them it's difficult to get ahold of them, but the ones i have been able to get ahold of, send them all books. haven't heard from any yet. and if they're not, i will have to deal with that. and there's a difference between, i think, being inaccurate and being unfair, or being -- or something they don't like and something being unfair. so, my mother died quite young,

some we not have liked people to have described her house as being a messy house, but it was a messy house. and that would have been an accurate description. wouldn't have been unfair. might have been a unnecessary, and that would have been different, but -- so you know, there are very tricky lines to walk. i hope that i've done it sensitively, and probably the way i haven't been sensitive i don't know about. i'll hear about it -- have to deal with it. but haven't been any complaints yet. >> host: here's a question. do you ever fear that in the process of discovery and writing and publishing you might accidentally incriminal a nate someone? some of these are unsolved. >> guest: incriminate? >> host: like, offer additional information that might not have

been -- >> guest: yes. >> host: put together in a way you put it together. >> guest: a couple of cases where people say they know who did it, but the people who did it are not -- have not been -- >> host: identified. >> guest: were brought to justice and so on and you have to be very careful about that. i'm trying to think how many of those. there's certainly one i can think of where the name was around and around. i think there were two where people say they knew who did it. but one in particular in a small town, where the father said, yeah, i've seen that kid. muman and i know who he is, but

don't know anything about it. >> host: all right. want to ask you about what i'm terming secondary characters, because you talk to a lot of people who were not there when the deaths happened, not necessarily related to directly to the victim, but who somehow were integral to the mourning process, that high school counselor, for example. so, in that case, all the people who were best friends or friends who grew up with the parents, things like that. can you talk about the extended network of grief thatland? >> guest: yes. so, in quite a few cases -- it actually comes with trying to find the family. the ten kids died, eight of them i found -- i didn't find by

going straight to in the house. it was from the parlor or -- someone who knew them on facebook. do you know how i can get in touch with so and so. and that these kids aren't just raised by their parents. there's a kind of -- there's a support network out there for them, who want to -- who know them in different ways, and -- i'm thinking of sean at kinson, and i spoke to his grandmother, who come from hard to reach communities and groups where people, frankly, are not just going to kind of open up to foreign journalist, just going to wander into south side

chicago and say, i'm looking for new who new kesean, come chat. but his godmother wanted to tell his story, and i could tell from her facebook postings how much she loved him. there was a connection there. thought this is someone -- and i hoped with a lot of these cases maybe you can -- and doesn't always work out like that. but i think that kind of extended network, preacher, teacher, basketball coach, is very important because parents often -- i know from growing up, my mother probably -- my mother knew in the longest, i was in her womb. didn't necessarily know me best. and other elements when you're

15, 16, you don't tell your parents everything. i'm a parent. i'm not sure i'd want to no anything my 15 and 16-year-old kid is doing. so then you have to -- yeah, you have to look elsewhere for those stories. >> host: okay. did anyone give you conflicting stories and then you had to find a middle ground for? >> guest: either conflicting -- more often it was partial story. it was kind of like, oh, okay. so, one of them i spoke to the mom, spoke to others, and they would have this kind of slight, yeah, he had not been in trouble. really? certainly not recently. 0 -- and then it was when i spoke to a friend he was like, he was in jail for a bit. and he was?

yeah, yeah, and said, well, what for? he was like, i can't remember. when? -- >> host: everything becomes fuzzy. >> guest: or maybe kind of like, yeah, could have been i don't know. whatever. so, in that moment i have to decide, do i want to pursue this? sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. i didn't have this friend for long. there were things i wanted to know. so i just -- in the book say, seems like he was in jail, could have been for three months or six. like nobody's really talking about that. i guess because it didn't seem -- i spoke to a fair few people who knew him, and didn't seem to be a defining thing

about him. wasn't -- i know he went to jail. a parent wouldn't want to share that with me. but i also know that it's something that is usual to know. so there were a few of those. or just, yeah, you know, someone spend from -- suspended from school. what for? and kind of quickly becomes fuzzy. and you get a sense that after a few conversations with different people, i decide from what i've heard it was something stupid, not something terrible, and i can find a way to get to the bottom of it, can pursue it, i can be kind of -- and that's my call.

and some of those things i do. i, no, i need to know what happened here. other times, okay. so i'll ask but when the same kind of fuzzy answer comes back, then i'm like, okay, the third time i've heard that form of words that doesn't really make a sentence. i'm just going to move on. >> host: right. you're like, i got it. so, final question is basically what do you know now, after having gone through this, having written it, after have something distance to think about it, what do you really, really know now with absolute certainty you didn't know before? >> guest: i would say three things. first of all, i know now that i didn't know before that african-american in particular

african-american parents carry around the fear their children might be shot dead, rickly low-income communities. from time and a again i ask them do you think this could happen? then like samuel's mom says i don't think it would be him. thought it would be his brother. the father says you're not doing your job as a black father. right. if you don't think your kid could be shot. every single bad parent had factored that into their painting itch didn't know that. -- into anywhere parenting. i didn't know that. i am a black parent. was a black parent here and you think, yes, guess i considered this. i have kind of felt there was that. the other was the -- the second was the degree to which the

ducks -- gun debate does not touch these people. doesn't engage them. it touches them, touches their lives, the conchs sequences do, but the debate -- the consequence does but the debate doesn't engage them. when i ask the question, what is this about, i doesn't come up. it seems to me like traffic. my kid -- this is a terrible, terrible thing that happened. what are you going to do? the hopelessness. and then the final thing is how achingly normal these children are. call of duty, mindcraft, all of this, they are -- while statistically if you're wealthy and white, these are unlikely to be your children. if you're wealthy, actually, wealthy and white, they're

unlikely to be your children. they are not that different either from your children or children you know. the parents are not as different as the parents -- know the parents. these are for the most part very, very normal people who it serves some people in the interests of the gun conversation to apologize but they're not that different. >> host: thank you so much. >> guest: thank you. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider.

starting now, on c-span 2, booktv's live "in depth" program, this month we does discuss the december 7, 1941 attack on pearl harbor with steve well toey, irry hotta, and craig nelson. and the attack left over 2,000 dead, 1,000 wounded and crippled the united states navy. for the next three hours, we'll take your questions. you can call in, e-mail us at book tv@c-span.org and post on our facebook wall. you're watching live "in depth" on booktv.