Poll: Should dueling be legal?

[Lizmichi]

No no and no. Killing another human being, consent or no, is murder, assisted suicide or man slaughter. We may have an over population issues but killing each other off is a wrong way to do it. If you hated someone you could just kill then and get away with it. That's bull shit and unneeded. Today enough people don't have the ethics to not exploit dueling. It would be an issue in and of it's self, instead of population issues we'd have mass murder.

Violence should be the last thing we turn to for solve issues. There are much better, while yes lengthier ways, to solve issues.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

Not with weapons! Real men should fight without weapons with a referee overseeing the fight and stopping it when either a) one person is really injured b) one person is being dominated c) no longer able to defend themselves

 

[PancakesSUCKTHEYDO]

OH HELL YES!



I would duel the fucker who invented captcha.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

As long as your actions do not infringe on a rights of another, I have no problem with them.

If two people sign their right to life away like this, let them be dumbasses together.

 

[PancakesSUCKTHEYDO]

No no and no. Killing another human being, consent or no, is murder, assisted suicide or man slaughter. We may have an over population issues but killing each other off is a wrong way to do it. If you hated someone you could just kill then and get away with it. That's bull shit and unneeded. Today enough people don't have the ethics to not exploit dueling. It would be an issue in and of it's self, instead of population issues we'd have mass murder.

Violence should be the last thing we turn to for solve issues. There are much better, while yes lengthier ways, to solve issues.

Which in turn are often corrupt, bias, and often times favouring the rich; not saying violence is the way but, the ways we have are not as great as they seem.

 

[Sgt.Weirdo]

Yup. What two consenting people do is none of the government's business.

Agreed!

Also, no firearms (ranged weaps like bows, slingshots, boomerangs etc. fine) but any melee weapon of choice is allowed.

And both parties need their own respective witness (friend, family).

Once if a challengee gets attacked/killed after declining or the challengee had no witness from his side then it is still considered murder/assault.

 

[Lizmichi]

No no and no. Killing another human being, consent or no, is murder, assisted suicide or man slaughter. We may have an over population issues but killing each other off is a wrong way to do it. If you hated someone you could just kill then and get away with it. That's bull shit and unneeded. Today enough people don't have the ethics to not exploit dueling. It would be an issue in and of it's self, instead of population issues we'd have mass murder.

Violence should be the last thing we turn to for solve issues. There are much better, while yes lengthier ways, to solve issues.

Which in turn are often corrupt, bias, and often times favouring the rich; not saying violence is the way but, the ways we have are not as great as they seem.

But it's better then killing each other over sleeping with someone's girl friend.

 

[Z(ombie)fan]

no, of course not you fucking loons.

one: everything said by someone against dueling in this entire thread

Two: to that cracked poster thats pro-dueling, we should find something Better than the justice system, going backwards is a truly epic fail on many levels, in any situation. we must always go forward, with the mindset: "improvement"

three: my way of handling this would almost always be "AT DAWN? really? well fine then, it ain't dawn, so shut it" *dawn* "well, time to kill that asshole in cold blood. it IS a duel after all"

What? Just because I oppose it means I can't be someone who would abuse it?

 

[tthor]

I don't think things should be legal just because the majority wants it to be legal; because, if history has taught us anything, its that the majority of people are idiots

 

[Mercsenary]

By dueling i'm referring to the sword or pistol duel. And I see no problem with it, although that doesn't mean I think it's right.

I don't think that it's really murder because the other person agreed to it, but it's not really suicide because the point of the duel is to not get killed.

I'm asking this out of boredom.

it wouldnt be murder. That would imply intent to kill. It would be manslaughter. Kind of like if you got into a collision with another car while drunk. And it killed someone. Charges would be DUI and involuntary manslaughter

Also duels would imply that our culture has this rigid code of honor kind of thing. 'S a reason why we grew out of it. "you killed my dad. Im here to challenge you to a duel." kills other guy. guy's son: "you killed my dad. I'm here to challenge you to a duel."

An endless cycle of revenge.

 

[BrionJames]

Agreed, friend. Sometimes, I think I'm the only one...

 

[Murray Whitwell]

I say yes only because dueling being illegal only shows the extent to which our world is ruled by control freaks who wont let you do what you want with your own life and body.

 

[Qmonster]

=Rich person murders someone... I mean, legally defeats someone in a duel. Sounds good to me.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Shit, it should be an Olympic sport.

I wonder how you would ever make a comeback.

 

[kypsilon]

If there was structure to the way duels were done and third party reps were to oversee the whole event, then it could work...and create jobs while eradicating over-population. The system could ensure that both parties were consenting to the affair, decide the time and place and weapons of choice. Burial matters could be hammered out before the duel itself and by the time all that paperwork was filed and approved, cooler heads may have prevailed and the duel could be called off.

I'm in.

 

[kickyourass]

Yes.
But lethal weapons are banned.

Paintball Duelling or something humiliating like a whole wet salmon or handbags.

Handbags at dawn would be amazing, pure comedy.

There is no more magnificent way to settle disputes between gentleman.

Someone I imagine that slapping some jackass with a fish would be infinitly more satisfying then just killing them.

 

[Mouse One]

A good friend of mine was challenged to a duel once. He (a historian) worked as a (US) Civil War battlefield guide, and was confronted by an angry southerner. He was peeved with the perceived "anti-Confederacy" slant of his museum's material. "The war was not about slavery," he argued. "It was about state's rights." It's a common argument, and if you spend enough time in areas of the country especially relevant to the Civil War, you hear it all the damn time. It's technically true, in fact, but the state right principally in dispute was, in fact, SLAVERY, so the argument falls flat pretty quickly when it comes up against someone who actually knows the material.

But this guy was not having it, and ultimately challenged my friend to a pistol duel right there in the museum. We are not time travelers. This happened in 2007. We ultimately got security to escort the man out, stopping short of calling the police because this fellow seemed crazy enough to start shooting if he thought "the man" was actually out to get him, and that if he's challenging people to pistol duels, he's probably a pretty good shot.

So, no, I'm not for legalizing dueling. It validates the perspectives of crazy people.

That's funny, in a sad sort of way (and having lived in Georgia, I know the type of guy the wacko was). And not only didn't he get his history right, he failed at the Code Duello-- your friend was challenged, he gets to choose the weapons. Again, lack of familiarity with the source material

 

[LC Wynter]

When you give people the legal rights to shoot each other's brains out one-on-one, mano-e-mano, people will end up up dying over trivial matters. You'd have to have the government/council deal with it, and that'd be a huge waste of resources best spent given to David Cameron.

That, and it would say, "HEY KIDS, YOU KNOW WHAT SOLVES ALL YOUR PROBLEMS? HONOURABLY SHOOTING A BRO IN THE FACE. IT'S NOT MURDER, HONEST!

 

[mikev7.0]

Yes.
But lethal weapons are banned.

Paintball Duelling or something humiliating like a whole wet salmon or handbags.

Handbags at dawn would be amazing, pure comedy.

I support this idea.

I third this. Motion passed. /thread

I also consent to this, although I'm thinking pillows need to be allowed..

I was facepalming my way through this entire thread (curse pain meds for making me to out of it to play but still not able to sleep.) and then I imagined a pillow fight between Rachel Maddow and Glen Beck. Then again, unless it was "Cocktails at Dawn!" Rachel would need to bring her A game....or someone could start playing Metallica. Guess what else I like to do when Morpheus eludes me....

I believe we have a concensus.....or it could be the drugs talking. Man I hate drugs....

 

[742]

what if im good at unarmed combat? or im great with a rifle but completely incompetent with a pistol? what if my skills are ill suited to combat; if im good at math or medicine or painting but not shooting/stabbing things? what if im quiet as a ghost, able to vanish in the blink of an eye-but not a really good shot at any distance? the duel enforces an "im better at hurting people while they watch. these are my values. if you dont like it, stand with no cover where i can see you and let me shoot at you" mentality, and if you dont have that one narrow and otherwise useless(without other skills) skill your kinda fucked. even if it does require that both parties consent-how many idiots are going to run of and get themselves killed? how many people are going to pretend to be incompetent morons who dont even know how to hold a gun just so they can kill people? and what will the social consequences of refusing a duel be-what will people say and think? what would the social ramifications of being able to challenge people to duels be? would you need to consider a risk of lynching when refusing a duel? its also potentially damaging to free expression-yes you could tell the congreessman that eating puppies is wrong and that you wont be voting for him again i f he keeps that up, but hes a really good shot. its a slippery slope, and it doesnt seem like there would be any reward to that risk.

on top of that its a great way to cover a murder("no officer, it was a duel; honest!" heres the "genuine" paperwork.), commit suicide-just challenge someone to a duel and dont try, or get someone in trouble for a murder they did not commit by "misplacing" paperwork.