Poll: Should dueling be legal?

[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.

 

[Queen Michael]

Yes, because it is very gentlemanly in my opinion. I know that the idea of solving your problems through violent means might not seem all that gentlemanly, but think about it: "Sir, we shall walk ten steps and then fire at eachother. "
"Quite right, my good man! Let us do so!"

 

[tzimize]

Dueling would imply we still had some code of honor.

:]


OT: Well, while I'm not principally against it I'm pretty sure we'd have a lot more random revenge stuff. Blood revenge etc.

 

[Dumori]

If dueling was legalised. It would need paperwork, a rule system (who says it's to the death or hell even with lethal weapons or weapons at all) both parties would have to agree and sign to a neutral witness(es). These are just legal and practical issues. "Honor" wouldn't be a huge issue it would take social setting up for backing down from a duel to be worse than death. I'd happly dule to first blood with a small-sword. Then as a épée fencer I would enjoy such bouts.

 

[6037084]

if both parties give their consent I don't see why not

 

[SultanP]

Drunk guy: Hey there pretty girl
Me: hey, thats my girlfriend stop flirting with her
Drunk guy: fuck off *****
Me: dude, we've been dating for 5 years... go away. Shes with me
Drunk guy: I'll do what i fucking want to!
Me: ???? You can't just do anything you want.
Drunk guy: hell yes i can. *pushes*
Me: WTF!? get lost
Drunk guy: I challenge you to a duel
Me: .... (Thinking to self) FUCK... *looks at girlfriend* FUCK.... ok, meet me outside.


NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. I do not feel like getting into a fight to the death with every drunken jackass who hits on my girlfriend. I've come to blows or nearly come to blows often enough with people. I really don't want it to be for my life the next time it happens. NO. It was a bad idea before and it's a bad idea now.

This:

More people voted yes than no?

I... I...

What?

Learn to say no, perhaps?

I am wholeheartedly in favour of duels, since both parties would have to agree, and I am a strong proponent of personal liberties. I think that if two people want to fight each other, either till death or submission, that should be allowed.

You honestly believe it would end with me saying no? That's...just...retarded and naive. Not fighting him makes me lose face both with him, the people and around me, and most importantly with her. That's the whole point of dueling. Loss of face or the fact that they won't listen to words. Fights to the death aren't some sort of recreational activity. Nobody does them because they WANT to. They do them because they feel that superior (as in the case of the drunk) or because they're forced into it (me). I say no, he just keeps hitting on her. You obviously have never had a girlfriend. Just let him hit on her and make her uncomfortable as shit and see if you get laid that night. No, she'll be pissed at you. My original point stands. Come back with a better thought out argument than say no. LOL...

Alright, fine. If you feel that you lose face just by refusing to fight someone, that's your problem, I personally don't feel ashamed if I don't agree to engage in violence just because of some stupid disagreement.

Also, if dueling became legal, I see it as having a bunch of rules attached to it. Such as having to be made official and legal by signing of papers, and the presence of some sort of state or city official. This means that if two people really did want to duel each other, they could, but you couldn't just kill someone and call it a duel, and you certainly couldn't engage in any duels on a whim, with it still being legal.

 

[Mattismen]

How about a nice duel of magic the gathering instead?

 

[Hawgh]

No, it was an excuse for the rich or competent murderers to either discredit or kill their competition.

How about a nice duel of magic the gathering instead?

Sounds lovely.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

Dueling would imply we still had some code of honor.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

The world lacks honor nowadays...

 

[Pointer]

Honestly it really depends. If we could use duelists to stop short wars by challenging the bad people who by some whimsy would accept then yes I agree with it. If every single asshole on the internet challenges others to duels because they are pure raging then no. I don't support the average layman's ability to duel.

There would need to be some designated "this guy can duel" card or status or class.

 

[Sunrider]

My vote goes to The Proving! I want to see something similar in the real world, and no, I am not kidding. (Dragon Age, to those who don't know what The Proving is)

 

[Ithera]

Duels are a messy affair, and leads to more problems than it solves. Better to leave these things to the courts. Legal duels can be hurtful to ones economy, but usually it stays at that.

 

[Beat14]

And I challenge the head of state... I voted no, as I think it could cause chaos if someone doesn't like a leader or anyone above them in a hierarchy. I haven't read all the posts so far but I would expect someone to have pointed this out already.

 

[Hisshiss]

As cool as the concept would be, I just imagine too many people actually doing it on a spur of the moment, after which you now have a death on your hands. I mean letting regular people get a gun too easily is a danger as it is, letting them shoot eachother in the streets over social matters is gonna cause some problems xD.

Still, red dead redemption has taught me that no problem worth solving can't be fixed by a bullet time mow down in the middle of a crowded street.

And laso's. Always have a laso.

 

[the_green_dragon]

No for the simple fact it would make everyone seem like posh rich people, that and people could challenge you to a duel for stupid shit because that's how people are. I can just imagine how some duels would start "sir you have just insulted my pickle, prepare to die, I challenge you to a duel."

On another note the number of idiotic people would decrease but the problem is that it would create a new breed of super idiots who can't be killed in a duel and they would someday take over the world.

You would have to agree to said duel and I'm sure these super idiots would find some other way to win a darwin award.

 

[Hisshiss]

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!

/support entirely.

And stuff.

 

[Wintermoot]

maybe in a safe form (like paintball guns or fencing swords) it would settle argument,s in a safe way while still solving them quick