I believe the reasoning is that the mere presence of the gun is a deterrent. If someone knows that you have the capacity to kill them or otherwise severely injure them if they attack you, they won’t attack.
I sincerely doubt that there are people who abhor fistfights who also see nothing wrong with a little shootout among friends.
Er, compared to a society that has fistfights all the time, yes.
It is certainly less violent than it would be under the OPs scheme, which would have people beating on each other over insults.
Hmm. I thought that was more of a rhetorical question. Look around! Read the news! This country is very violent today, and it’s much worse than fistfights.
But is it more or less violent than it used to be? And is it more or less violent than it would be if fistfights were more accepted? I have no idea the answer to the first question, but I’d guess that it’s less violent with regards to the second.
I suspect that a lot of people here have either never been in a fight or have mostly been on the receiving end of schoolyard bullying. So for someone like that, physical violence is not really a viable option as they are unlikely to be on the side that reaps the benefit.
The thread is timely as I was just involved in a minor physical altercation last night. My opinion on the matter is that fist fights are only “good for society” such that being able to defend youself or otherwise stand up to bullies is good for society. But really the only “disagreement” it resolves is which drunken idiot is the bigger asshole. And even if I win, ultimately it ruins my night anyway and puts me in a foul mood for several days.
Like any skill, the better that one gets at it, the more likely one comes to rely on it. At what point do you go from defending yourself to becoming a jerk who who picks fights at the slightest provocation?
Here is the question I would pose to the OP. Do you think fistfights are necessary because you don’t like how people are acting/speaking or because you disagree with what they are saying?
Two things:
Firstly, I disagree with your premise that this country is more violent in today’s times than it used to be. (I refer you to the violent crime graph.)
Secondly, I disagree with the idea that adding widespread, institutionalized violence will make society less violent.
– Sigmund Freud
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
–Isaac Asimov
“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it
with their lives and freedoms.”
–Robert A. Heinlein
Now…FIGHT!!!
Well, I’d like to see the actual data and know exactly what they’re calling “victimizations.” Moreover, I’d like to see the data going back several more decades, at least. And a geographic breakout might be interesting too.
But there sure seem to be a lot more mass shootings than there used to be, no? I reckon the graph doesn’t take into account the general terrorization of society by spectacular crimes.
We’re not talking about institutionalized violence.
The OP argument, as I understood it and have been more-or-less supporting, is that the benefit is general. The pressure on certain individuals to moderate their behavior–as a consequence of, or to avoid, a fight–leads not only to those individuals behaving better towards others generally, but in turn the improved civility among those supports others being more civil.
You need not ever participate in a fight, or even risk one, to benefit. So the hypothesis goes.
Here’s another graph, for example.
Last Friday night a friend of a friend was asking about my kid.
It turned into “I don’t wanna bang her, I just wanna see what she looks like”
After my buds telling him to chill, he unleashed the “c” word.
I clocked him backwards out of his (my) patio chair.
He said he was gonna come back and shoot me.
Crickets chirp.
The only problem with Heinlein’s statement is that violence alone almost never truly “settles” issues. It may seem to for a time, but inevitably issues settled solely by violence bubble to the surface again in different ways.
And you are assuming that regular fistfights would decrease mass shootings. I disagree. And furthermore, we can back-and forth spectacular incidents all day long. For every Seung-Hui Cho you can cite, I can rebut with an Ed Gein.
The point still stands.
But that’s a flawed hypothesis. If fistfights are socially acceptable, I’m risking getting in one every day, just by going outside and interacting with society. And no, I’m not a raging asshole, but other people could misinterpret my actions, or they could just be looking for a fight and see me as a target, and then I’m bleeding and bruised and that’s no fun.
Myth Challenge:
I’ve been in fist-fights. Not many, and not for quite a while now, but I can count on one unicorn hoof the number of times I shook hands with the guy afterward and went out for beers. The fist-fights I’ve been in were because the other guy and I didn’t like each other for whatever reason. Punching each other in the face, oddly, did not generate any common ground over which to bond.
That graph ends at 1990! How is that a useful metric on today, 20 years later?!
There are only two times I’ve ever been involved in anything even resembling a fight:
1.) Middle school. Another kid had been making fun of me all year. I lost my temper and threw a punch. Not a very effective punch - kid seemed more surprised than anything, and didn’t retaliate. Frankly, I’m kind of embarassed I did that.
2.) College. I was at a party, standing behind a friend who was making an ass of himself. The host tried to shove him out of the door, and ended up shoving me as well, accidentally. The fellow apologized, and I accepted - my friend really had been an ass, and I’d just been in the wrong place, wrong time. It happens.
Other than those incidents, I’ve never backed down from a physical confrontation, because I’ve never been in one. Why would I be? I’m polite, soft-spoken, and I don’t become belligerant when drunk. I’ve never had to go to any effort to avoid a fight, because I’ve never been (with the above exceptions) even within spitting distance of one.
I suspect most men are like me - are we all wimps, then? Shall I head out to the pub and slug somebody in order to prove my manhood to all and sundry?
Acid Lamp i think you are giving Law Enforcement the short shrift here… There are quite a few cops who will listen to whats happened and ascertain that you were standing up for a lady being threatened. This sentiments is a nice THOUGHT… but it reminds me of another thread in which the OP was encouraged to physically attack/defend a probably bigger stronger man. Most people haven’t had a “fight” in years… if ever…its an exhausting struggle… when we make recruits fight what you find is 3minutes in they are tired beyond belief… Fighting is an art… its not something someone can just pull out of their ass whenever the time seems right. In most cases its probably better if that aforementioned guy calls the police because unless he’s primed ready and skilled for it he might get himself killed.
Or ecactly the same way. WWI possibly settled the start date of WWII, and that’s about it.
This is why fighting is “allowed” in hockey games. And it works.
