

Who says America doesn't have castles? - tokenadult
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/10/violence

======
arbuge
"The South is America's most violent region; both blacks and whites in the
South are more violent than those in the northeast. In other words, the murder
rate is highest in those states that most disdain the sovereign ("government")
and champion self-reliance."

Looks a bit flimsy. By the same token, it's also highest in those states with
hottest weather, proximity to Mexico and the Gulf, lower educational
attainment, etc.

~~~
nsmartt
I don't necessarily disagree that it's flimsy, but intolerance is fairly
common around my community. Racism is on the decline by the younger
generation, but it's by no means invisible or gone.

The presence of prejudices in the South (assuming other states/communities are
still largely similar to mine) could support the argument that people still
feel the need to protect themselves (because prejudice results in distrust of
those one is prejudiced against).

------
CKKim
For an article which seemed to jump about so much, I found this unusually
readable. I think it's because each paragraph has at least one "nugget". e.g.

    
    
      > As late as the mid-1800s, an English gentleman was expected to beat
      > a boorish cabman or bargee for an affront we would now consider trivial.
    

This is a style of writing which instead of drawing facts and anecdotes to
support a thesis rather draws a thesis to sew together facts and anecdotes -
in this case the "American castle" theme. This is Malcolm Gladwell done short
and sweet.

------
nkurz
_If someone has merely "reasonable belief" that he will be assaulted, even by
an unarmed assailant, in his home, he may use deadly force in response._

This makes sense to me. The worries that this might be abused seem real, but I
don't understand the mindset that one should accept being beaten into
submission by an assailant who has just broken into your house, armed or not.
Is this really the thought, or is the presumption that the abuses of the
principle will be a greater problem than the current crimes?

I don't see how it is possible to accurately judge that someone has the intent
to physically harm me, but not the intent to kill me. Is the presumption that
once I'm incapacitated, they will complete their crime, helpfully calling an
ambulance on the way out? I lack that faith, particularly in those who have
already shown intent to do me physically harm.

I wonder if the difference is that I personally have a general opposition to
violence (as in, I have never violently attacked anyone, don't think much of
violent sports, and am bothered by media glorification of violence), and thus
don't see many circumstances in which I would attack someone while
simultaneously limiting myself to non-lethal options. Are those who are
against the 'castle doctrine' doing so as to preserve a perceived right to
limited violence?

As regards this case, do those who disapprove of the shooter's actions feel
that the 'victim' was in some way entitled escalate from text messages to a
violent unarmed assault on the homeowner for having a relationship with his
wife? Or do they doubt this was his intent? Would the situation be different
if he clearly but merely intended to give him a "good beating" for
embarrassing him by usurping his right to exclusive access to his wife?

[Apologies if my phrasing makes my questions seem rhetorical. I would love to
understand the opposing view better.]

------
ggchappell
> The word "chivalry" has its roots in the knight's battle mount (cheval), not
> his behaviour towards ladies.

This is a bit disingenuous -- or perhaps just uninformed.

Yes, that is the ultimate linguistic origin of the word. However, our modern
usage of the word "chivalry" comes from the Code of Chivalry, a set of ideas
promulgated first by the church, and later more widespread, and intended to
mitigate the worst aspects of warlord-ish behavior the article refers to. The
various forms of this code usually included requirements to protect the
defenceless and treat women with honor.

------
yread
Interesting article (if not really Hacker news material, I think). It is made
even better by the (currently) last comment (the one with Lamech), make sure
you read it, too.

------
ecliptic
The root of the word chivalry is telling. We portray history in fairy tale
manner, as if the old days were better, and consequently it is awkward to feel
anger. What about the progress we have made in spite of our naturally selected
for violence? Evolutionarily, except in niche cases, pacifist gene lines were
subjected to negative selection pressure. We unfortunately have some wiring
that is not up to code.

