
A Backyard Fight Club as an Alternative to Gun Violence - nadezhda18
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/us/a-backyard-fight-club-as-an-alternative-to-gun-violence.html
======
wtbob
Reading the bit about a dispute over money reminded me of trial by combat,
which this essentially is. That in turn got me to wondering how much gang
violence is due to a lack of access to the conflict-resolution procedures
common in the rest of society. If I believed that my employer has underpaid
me, I'd send him a nice letter; if that failed, I'd send a less-nice letter;
if that failed, I'd turn to a lawyer and eventually to the court system.

But the courts don't take notice of illegal-drug-related debts (I believe),
nor do they any longer enforce the laws against alienation of affection or
adultery, leaving those who are such disputes to take matters into their own
hands.

~~~
sandworm101
Trial by combat, at least the modern understanding of it, is a myth. It was an
extraordinarily rare event. People forget that it was meant to always end in
death. Even if you survived combat, as the looser you were proven a liar
before god and executed. Trial by combat was a threat used to prevent parties
from swearing oaths casually, something useful only in extremely religious
societies and totally out of place today. Letting people beat each other up
over petty debts or teenage romances is never appropriate.

There is a dispute resolution mechanism for criminals. It's called organized
crime. The boss decides.

~~~
chrisco255
We have on record examples of former US Presidents who solved their
differences with duels: [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-
jackson-ki...](http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/andrew-jackson-
kills-charles-dickinson-in-duel)

~~~
sandworm101
Those are really just honor disputes between rich kids, old kids but still
kids. It's not like a court is going to dismiss a defamation action on the
basis that it had already been settled during a previous duel, or award money
to the winner.

I don;t use the term 'rich' lightly. Worldwide, dualing has been a game for
the wealthy. You had to have the right to carry the weapon, usually a sword.
Lower classes were generally not allowed to duel.

------
eggy
At first blush it seems like a good idea, but I think there are better ways.
When I grew up in Sunset Park, Brooklyn in the 70s, we used to have impromptu
boxing matches on the corner with only gloves for this very same reason. The
local boy's club had Wednesday night boxing. I think the energy should be
channeled into something more positive like breakdancing was a way for groups
to battle when I was a kid. My father was a Golden Gloves runner up in the
50s, so it was passed down without question. The cliche of 'get the kids off
the street by boxing' goes way back in film and reality. As a result of
breakdancing, I also got into dance skating in the Central Park skate circle
and met more people with different outlooks. Now, MMA is just one step below
gladiator fights, and is very popular all over the world, urban and suburban.
I just wish there were more creative outlets to leave the path to any type of
violence behind.

~~~
angersock
I see what you're saying, but at some level violence is--I would argue--a core
part of what makes humans human, or at the very least what makes shithead
teenage males shithead teenage males.

Surely there is the "our group is better than your group", and that certainly
is served by creative outlets like your breakdancing--however, there is also
very much the "somehow or some way you have wronged me, and I demand a chance
to even things out".

That latter case is not really handled well by creative outlets, because it
gives no visceral satisfaction. In those cases, avenging against a bully or
thief or something similar, slugging it out with boxing gloves is probably the
better answer.

I guess it comes down to whether you want to fight human nature or safely
accommodate it.

~~~
eggy
Having boxed for 2 years, and fought in the streets as a kid, I am not in
denial about violence being a 'core' part of our current humanity. I think we
can evolve away from it. For the record, it is about the individual for me, no
groups or groupthink or tribalism as hinted at by "our group is better than
your group", which I think should only be a sentiment for when we are immature
and do not know better. Now in my older age, I apologize for something more
readily and sooner than when I was a teenager, even if I have not convinced
myself I am at all wrong. Maturity, and in my case sobriety, help me greatly
to try and grow, and redirect or solve my personal or interpersonal issues in
a less violent, more creative and positive manner including eliminating
abusive, berating, or condescending speech. I am not 'PC' by any means, but I
am more human, I think by finding compassion and empathy where I once looked
as might as a last resort in a failing intellectual argument. We poison
ourselves and solve nothing with negative rage, or energy. Turning upset into
a personal challenge. I am but a naive fifty-something hoping to one-up
myself. Fortunately, my children are already more emotionally, and
intellectually mature than when I was their age, and I am this in comparison
to my father. This is my 'empirical' evidence of evolving away from violence
without violent substitution.

~~~
angersock
Thank you for a good writeup. :)

I don't meant to come across as supporting violence instead of more civilized
ways of handling things; your point about getting older and being able to
handle things nonviolently certain rings true to me.

It's more, to me, that that violent stage is very much something that we all
go through to one degree or another. Once we're past that stage, we see how
silly it is, but if you never grow through and out of it, I think you can't
reason about it as successfully.

Policies which seek to remove that stage entirely (typically through
medication, zero-tolerance policies, or what not) damage the socialization of
young adults and children. I think we should provide a safe route to explore
and then grow out of those tendencies, instead of trying to pretend they don't
exist.

------
clebio
Watching this, I wonder about the NY Times as a news source. I've always liked
the nytimes website for it's clean look, writing style, and lack of click-
bait. But watching the people in this video reminds me of all the real-life TV
shows about cops, bounty hunters, home makeovers, etc. etc. How do I know
these are real people? The things they say, the blocking and framing of scenes
seems just-so -- it's so well made, that I doubt the authenticity. And, even
if it's authentic, it's so convenient. They happened to find the one hard
rolling banger that eventually comes about, and admits that his old ways were
wrong and he's willing to try to do better....

I guess I like my print media ... printed.

~~~
pgrote
I understand your point and noticed the same thing. Other videos the NY Times
produced typically have a long form article with it forming the basis of the
video.

The two guys who made the documentary are not NY Times employees, but
independents.

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/matteo-
minasi-13abb418](https://www.linkedin.com/in/matteo-minasi-13abb418)

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-
harmon-993a206](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-harmon-993a206)

Perhaps it was a freelance pitch and the NY Times accepted it?

------
aedocw
I'm always disappointed when I see violence being celebrated in our culture. I
understand it's been a part of human history from the beginning but I think
humanity at large has a lot to gain by being less violent.

If there is going to be violence at least moving from kill-at-a-distance
weapons to fists is a step in the right direction. I read a really good book
on this subject[1] and realized I identified with a lot of what he had to say.
Though I didn't grow up in a neighborhood where I had to fight anyone to prove
myself, I certainly saw those attitudes around me (you're only a man if you're
always ready to hurt another man) and it always struck me as sad. I see the
same thing happening with the popularity of MMA - sure ancient cultures used
to watch gladiators fight to the death, but is watching and cheering that on a
good thing for any culture?

[1]: Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence by Geoffrey Canada

~~~
PhasmaFelis
The urge to violence is built into our DNA. Not everyone expresses it fully,
but it will always be a part of our culture. Anything that redirects that urge
in pro-social ways is a good thing, in my opinion.

~~~
danbruc
_The urge to violence is built into our DNA._

Citation needed.

~~~
zepto
Not really. Given the prevalence of it, the burden of proof is on the claim
that it is not.

~~~
danharaj
That's absurd. Yes, humans are violent. Men are especially violent. The null
hypothesis isn't that it is caused by DNA of all things.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Where else would it come from? Nature and nurture are the only options;
culture can certainly encourage (or suppress) violence, but it's pretty
obvious that it isn't the _sole_ cause of violence.

Maybe I should clarify. I'm not saying that every human being secretly yearns
to smash and kill. I'm saying that most of the human race has an instinctive
drive to respond to certain setbacks with violence, and some people (whether
through nature, nurture, or both) find it more difficult to suppress that than
others.

------
tamana
Why would a scrawny angry kid prefer losing a fistfight over winning a
gunfight?

~~~
angersock
...because it's a lot easier for the scrawny angry kid to use their fists than
acquire a gun?

~~~
g8oz
You'd be surprised how easy it is to get a gun in an urban center. In certain
neighborhoods you can even rent them for a night.

------
microcolonel
A bit silly to frame it as an "Alternative to Gun Violence". Stabbing is an
alternative to gun violence, as is a deliberate collision with a car. It's
funny how they manage to make everything about the guns.

This is an alternative to murder or serious assault.

~~~
wkyle
Considering 67.8% of murders are committed with firearms[1], it's pretty fair
to frame this as an attempt to reduce gun violence. Also, this solution mainly
focuses on resolving disputes in a non-lethal way that would have been
traditionally resolved through murder, making guns an even more relevant focus
due to the high death rate of shooting in comparison to non-firearm assault.
[1] [https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2011/...](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8)

~~~
microcolonel
Fair enough, though the problem with that is that you could curb "firearm
deaths" or "assault with firearms", but potentially the overall problem would
remain unchanged.

You would be stuck measuring the specific subset of the problem.

The problem is assault or intentional homicide; so the form only matters in
considering concrete solutions. What you measure afterward should be assault
or intentional homicide.

------
wrigby
As a JMU alum, I it was both interesting and burdensome to see the other side
of the 'Burg that I was sheltered from when at school. Myself and most of my
classmates were aware of the duality of Harrisonburg's culture, but to see it
from this angle makes it more poignant than it was when I was at school.

Whether the approach is perfect or not, the intentions appear good to me. I
worry though that the yard would just be a revolving door for people that have
long-running disputes. Of course, having the same two people fight each other
every few months is more desirable than the more permanent alternatives.

~~~
wyclif
I lived in Harrisonburg on and off from 1992-1997, punctuated by a job in
Northern VA. At that time JMU was a typical cow college surrounded by farmland
with poultry processing plants (Tyson, Rocco Turkey in Dayton). The whole
oxycontin-heroin problem was just getting off the ground at the time.
Fortunately I was pretty far removed from all the bad stuff in town, living on
a farm outside of Bridgewater and running my first BBS via modem on a FreeBSD
box.

Now the drug problem in rural America has really gotten out of hand. There
have been quite a number of meth labs, and crack and heroin have become a
public health problem on the other side of the tracks.

------
gadders
If you have a society where the chance of enforcement by authorities is low,
then you develop an Honour Society. People have to retaliate or defend
themselves to prevent them being taken advantage of in the future.

------
_nullandnull_
Thank you for posting this. Its a great example of the power of community. Its
kind of sad the police are not involved in these fights. Having off duty
police officers as security would allow them to interact with their community.

------
dawnbreez
As others point out, shooting someone is an ideal route to take when the
courts cannot get involved.

This sounds like an interesting take on the matter.

------
vezzy-fnord
This doesn't go far enough. The institution of dueling should be brought back
as a legally valid contractual arrangement. It may be morbid, but if two
people really deem the situation to be so critical, and provided that they
duel in an isolated location, it could be doable.

Not that it should necessarily be encouraged. But to prohibit it entirely
seems counterproductive, like the hilariously unenforceable prohibitions
against suicide (unless you survive, making you wish you had succeeded once
facing the legal consequences).

~~~
jon-wood
If someone was challenged to a duel they'd be honour bound to accept, even if
they knew they were entirely innocent of whatever provoked the challenge in
the first place.

Someone being taken to court when innocent is inconvenient, but it can be
resolved. If you're innocent but not very good with a sword that innocence
isn't going to prevent potentially mortal wounds, yet refusing the challenge
leaves a stain on your character.

~~~
zepto
We have this exact problem now - only 'not very good with a sword', is
substituted with 'not having a lot of money'.

~~~
Gracana
Which is kind of funny, because back when being good with a sword mattered,
"not very good with a sword" generally meant "not having a lot of money" as
well.

