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.
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).
> 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 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.]
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.