Of course, I wouldn’t take this position were it not for the fact that codes associated with dueling seek to bring about peaceful resolutions to conflicts before any blood is shed, but even if this were not the case, innocent lives would be saved by ensuring, through the presence and organization of duels regulated by a code of conduct, that noncombatants would be nowhere near the line of fire if antagonists decided to use violence to settle their disputes.How many gun-related murders do you suppose occur in which the victim had a long-standing grudge against the perpetrator? Remember, you can only have a duel if both people agree. I would guess that most gun murder victims are innocent of any crime. The obvious exception, of course, is gang violence. The article to which Yousefzadeh links, written by Jamie Brooke, offers dueling as a way of avoiding the deaths of innocent bystanders in gang wars:
Much violence is based on a desire for respect and in reaction to perceived slurs in gang dominated sections of society. Outside these gangs the same problems are dealt with entirely differently, however this was not always the case. Medieval knights, noblemen and royals would do anything to be seen as courageous and to preserve their honour, and as is the case with modern city gangs were prepared to die defending that image. The system that was established is that of duelling.
"Much violence is based on a desire for respect and in reaction to perceived slurs in gang dominated sections of society." Assuming for argument's sake that this is true (and I doubt it is), does Brooke seriously believe that he can change the gang culture to one of chivalry? That gang members can be convinced that, rather than shoot the offending speaker on the spot, they ought to challenge them to a duel? Why would you agree to a fair fight if you can shoot them in cold blood on the spot?
No comments:
Post a Comment