Poll: Should dueling be legal?

Recommended Videos

blaza

New member
Nov 26, 2010
36
0
0
Giest4life said:
If a public announcement is made, I don't see any problem with it.
You could announce it kinda like marriages in the newspaper
"Harrison-Johnson duel
April 4th 2011.
*insert description of where duels taking place and why their dueling* "
 

TheTurtleMan

New member
Mar 2, 2010
467
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
TheTurtleMan said:
but I like to think that we have evolved as a society to a less barbaric system of law.
*snicker snort* Oh yes, funny you. Just because it doesn't involve death doesn't mean it's less barbaric. Just watch the musical Chicago for a parody on the whole spiel. Really, we're the same ol' people as ever, we just go about it a lot more sneaky and cover it up with a thin veneer of deceny while it's probably even more rotten than ever.
Well we just disagree with each other. Maybe you have a point though, instead of talking it out, I say we meet at high noon for a gentleman's challenge. Let's make it a gun duel because I still have dried blood on my samurai sword from my last disagreement with someone.
 

trooper6

New member
Jul 26, 2008
873
0
0
Roland07 said:
EllEzDee said:
Sorry but duelling is pretty close to murder.
You back down, you'll be laughed at, ie, lose your "honour"; you take it all the way, and you'll either lose your life, or take someone else's.

Wasn't it duelling that took the second US president's life?
I think you're all underestimating modern society's total absence of backbone. It is considered an insufferable outrage if too many pickles end up on your giant-mega-burger. If the person who messed up the order could just declare a duel, how often would the whiner accept just to save face. I'm pretty sure reason would prevail most of the time, and people wouldn't risk their lives about the honor our culture gave up over a hundred years ago. As long as it is made acceptable to back out, it would at least stop people causing a bunch of trouble for reason they don't even care about, just because they think they can sue.

Whiner: "Waiter, you gave me the wrong drink, this is unacceptable, I demand a full refund-"
Waiter: "AT DAWN WE DUEL!"
Whiner: "Here's your tip..."
You don't really understand how the societies that had dueling worked, do you.

Waiters were low class and could never demand a duel on someone of a higher class. Back in the day when there were duels it went something like this--if you were noble and a poor person upset you, you just beat them, or had your servants beat them...and no court would do anything about it. Nobles were the law and could rape and abuse any poor person they felt like. And still keep their "honor" in tact...because lower classes didn't have rights.

That isn't a world I'd like to go back to.

And we still have honor killings today. This usually involves fathers murdering their daughters because they don't like who they are dating.

Great.
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,103
0
0
Veterinari said:
No, it should remain illegal. If nothing else because it's essentially just a form of grown-up low-brow bullying that devalues people and favours, let's face it, the type of athletic amoral ass-holes that would train for that crap and then demand to get to kill people they just didn't like and get away with it.
Unless they were using pistols. You don't really have to be an athlete to use those.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Dueling would imply we still had some code of honor.
Yes, because brutal duels to the death are most certainly honourable.

*rolls eye at the melodrama of internet folk*

OT: No.

AnubisAuman said:
No. It would merely promote resolution of problems through violence.
Because of this.
 

Frotality

New member
Oct 25, 2010
982
0
0
if both/all people involved agree to it, sure, were not exactly an endangered species right now. as another poster pointed out though, bureaucracy would make it more needlessly complicated than the violent caveman population of humanity could reasonably circumvent, which would leave a lot of dumb people wanting to kill each other unable to duel, which kinda removes a big social benefit of having duels.

i was thinking maybe local morgues could be expanded to support dueling rings and handle most of the paperwork, which would at least centralize the process.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
Will have to say no seeing as how it could be a major liability to bystanders. An errant shot could kill someone. Plus, there's the legal morass that could ensue if someone was trying to falsely claim participation in a duel or vice versa. It's not a right I have any qualms about giving up.
 

gabe12301

New member
Jun 30, 2010
1,371
0
0
Cropsy91 said:
This is just a bad idea in every way possible. Murder is murder, whether through it's through 'traditional' homicide or dueling.

I'd also like to add that the original post specifically states that 'dueling' is referring to sword or pistol dueling, which always end in death.
Well... in pistol duels if you shoot someone in the foot, the duel is over and everyone walks (or limps) away because you only get to shoot once. And in sword duels you can choose not to kill the guy once he is obviously defeated.
 

gabe12301

New member
Jun 30, 2010
1,371
0
0
trooper6 said:
Roland07 said:
EllEzDee said:
Sorry but duelling is pretty close to murder.
You back down, you'll be laughed at, ie, lose your "honour"; you take it all the way, and you'll either lose your life, or take someone else's.

Wasn't it duelling that took the second US president's life?
I think you're all underestimating modern society's total absence of backbone. It is considered an insufferable outrage if too many pickles end up on your giant-mega-burger. If the person who messed up the order could just declare a duel, how often would the whiner accept just to save face. I'm pretty sure reason would prevail most of the time, and people wouldn't risk their lives about the honor our culture gave up over a hundred years ago. As long as it is made acceptable to back out, it would at least stop people causing a bunch of trouble for reason they don't even care about, just because they think they can sue.

Whiner: "Waiter, you gave me the wrong drink, this is unacceptable, I demand a full refund-"
Waiter: "AT DAWN WE DUEL!"
Whiner: "Here's your tip..."
You don't really understand how the societies that had dueling worked, do you.

Waiters were low class and could never demand a duel on someone of a higher class. Back in the day when there were duels it went something like this--if you were noble and a poor person upset you, you just beat them, or had your servants beat them...and no court would do anything about it. Nobles were the law and could rape and abuse any poor person they felt like. And still keep their "honor" in tact...because lower classes didn't have rights.
I mean mid 1700's to mid 1800's dueling not 1600's.
 

Private Custard

New member
Dec 30, 2007
1,920
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Handbags at dawn would be amazing, pure comedy.
It would be brilliant. But I could see a whole world of competitive people taking it too far, like they do with conkers.

Some would laquer their handbags and bake them in the oven for toughness, others would fill them with bricks, or pool balls!

They could show the duels on TV.....it'd beat the shit they show on Saturday nights at the moment!
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
I think it should be legal.

Only stupid people would go for it (the shooting variety, at least), but if two people truly believe something so strongly that they are willing to risk their life for it, or if two people truly hate each other so much that they BOTH COMPLETELY consent to this test of might or luck, I think that it is not the government's business.

As long as both parties are consenting and lay the rules out very clearly, with signed documents and everything, I see no room for abuse and no reason for it to be illegal.
 

Xpwn3ntial

Avid Reader
Dec 22, 2008
8,023
0
0
Absolutely, to the death and only to the death between two consenting adults. If it is made perfectly clear that someone will die at the end of it, fewer people will accept and if they do, that's their fault and only their fault.
 

BlueberryMUNCH

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,892
0
0
Mabye, but then again, the strongest person would win; it's no contest.

It's a brutal idea, and it'd be totally abused.

Actually, fuck it, it's a terrible idea.

Yeh.
 

Lionsfan1986

New member
Oct 20, 2008
146
0
0
Yes Dueling should be legal, but only with swords! If what you fighting over is that much trouble a least fight to to death over it!
 

mik1

New member
Dec 7, 2009
199
0
0
Getting away with murder would be a lot easier. It would also be nice to see old white politicians killing each other.
 

olicon

New member
May 8, 2008
601
0
0
It's just too much of a burden on society. If you missed a shot, you could hit someone else. If you don't die, insurance will probably have to cover you. And reports of random gunfire everywhere could do bad thing to the police's sanity.

And ultimately, senseless killing in any way, shape, or form just doesn't sit right with me.
 

Kukakkau

New member
Feb 9, 2008
1,898
0
0
Drakmeire said:
Yes and here is proof.
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/dueling_headerwm.jpg
This is everything I wanted to say.

For matters the law is hazy about or won't touch - pick up a glove slap them with it and duel it out