Yeah, I'm all in favour of encouraging angry and violent young men to follow the Marquis of Queensberry rules, but I can't imagine many people agreeing to settle a dispute in this matter unless they thought they'd win. Even allowing for everybody thinking they're an above-average fighter, this can surely only be a partial solution.
Because agreeing to settle by fight proves you're not scared to fight. It shows that even if another person can beat you, they're going to have to work at it, and risk damage in the process. Loosing a fight is much better for a reputation than declining to fight.
I am speaking on behalf of the thinking of kids I used to teach in a rough neighborhood. I've never lived with such dynamics myself.
Shooting someone also shows another person has to risk damage to beat you.
Because it's not about winning. It's about demonstrating that you will defend yourself and that you're not an easy victim. That's what an honour culture is. A less lethal way of doing that means the risk of being killed is much less, with the same beneficial outcome.
... Less a chance of being arrested for homicide, less a chance of being murdered in a future retaliation, less a chance of being sent to jail for firearms related charges?
...because it's a lot easier for the scrawny angry kid to use their fists than acquire a gun?
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.
If it was so hard to acquire a gun, we wouldn't be worried about the dangers of gun violence.