Sebastian the Ibis
Member
You should get the death penalty for losing a duel.
Should Dueling be illegal?
- Thread starter Oyeboten
- Start date
- Status
The_Shootist
Member
Shrug - spend the money and go to Paraguay its legal there, I think. No need to needlessly clutter up American laws or mores - go offshore and do it there if it turns your crank.
It's odd but if you really think about it we allow possible death through confrontation through physical aggression now, the question is really just a matter of degree.
Is the likelyhood of death through boxing legal? Yes. Why?
Is the likelyhood of death through football legal? Yes. Why?
Is the likelyhood of death through stock car racing legal? Yes. Why?
Is the likelyhood of death through dueling legal? No. Why not?
Granted the percentage of death is guaranteed to be higher, does that mean your opponent having a chance to kill you is OK as long as it's not a abnormally high chance?
Does it mean you can risk life and limb, as a consenting adult, but not really, even as a consenting adult?
Look at all the waivers of liability out there. What they all say is this, "Sure you can get maimed or killed......sign here."
Is the likelyhood of death through boxing legal? Yes. Why?
Is the likelyhood of death through football legal? Yes. Why?
Is the likelyhood of death through stock car racing legal? Yes. Why?
Is the likelyhood of death through dueling legal? No. Why not?
Granted the percentage of death is guaranteed to be higher, does that mean your opponent having a chance to kill you is OK as long as it's not a abnormally high chance?
Does it mean you can risk life and limb, as a consenting adult, but not really, even as a consenting adult?
Look at all the waivers of liability out there. What they all say is this, "Sure you can get maimed or killed......sign here."
WardenWolf
member
While legalizing dueling would serve a noble purpose by reducing the number of idiots in the world, it is not acceptable in a modern society. Life used to be considered a lot cheaper than it is now. Deaths during exploration, colonization, and just general everyday work were often considered "acceptable risk". Now, of course, we take every means possible to prevent even a single death from happening, but back then a certain amount of death was expected and accepted. These old views, then, about the lesser importance of an individual life, created a culture where consentual dueling was acceptable. It was an idea whose time has past, however.
Mike OTDP
Member
Let me summarize the case:
For:
The code inflicts justice where the law does not reach.
The code allows personal satisfaction for grievances.
Against:
Social pressure can lead to unwarranted duels.
Difficulty in differentiating between duels and murders.
Issue:
Lack of seconds intimately familiar with the code.
Possible solution:
Make duelling a possible court-directed settlement of civil cases where there is no clear right, and it is clear that either the parties are motivated by personal animus or there is no just financial settlement.
For:
The code inflicts justice where the law does not reach.
The code allows personal satisfaction for grievances.
Against:
Social pressure can lead to unwarranted duels.
Difficulty in differentiating between duels and murders.
Issue:
Lack of seconds intimately familiar with the code.
Possible solution:
Make duelling a possible court-directed settlement of civil cases where there is no clear right, and it is clear that either the parties are motivated by personal animus or there is no just financial settlement.
wyocarp
Member
Personally, I think that the winner ought to get to keep both pistols, no questions asked even if it had to be transfered through an FFL. That probably wouldn't be a problem if both men were residents of that state.
JImbothefiveth
Member
No, it should not be legal. Some laws are in place to protect stupid people, and this is one of them.
Dueling endangers innocent bystanders, is probably immoral, is bad for the economy and results in needless deaths.
. It results in needless deaths.
.it teaches people that violence is an appropriate solution for slight insults. (That's why we have such a crime problem.)
Dueling endangers innocent bystanders, is probably immoral, is bad for the economy and results in needless deaths.
The problems is that in dueling death is the goal. In car racing, that's not the goal.
. It results in needless deaths.
.it teaches people that violence is an appropriate solution for slight insults. (That's why we have such a crime problem.)
Last edited:
Sunray
Member
Dueling is illegal. There's no 'should' involved.
LibShooter
Member
Maybe dueling is a pretty good idea, for the good of the species. Anyone stupid enough to stand still while someone points a pistol at him should not be allowed to breed!
Dueling fell out of favor with "gentlemen" when pistols got to be reliable and accurate enough to actually kill someone. Before the 19th century one was probably more likely to survive a duel than the infections following a good brawl.
Dueling fell out of favor with "gentlemen" when pistols got to be reliable and accurate enough to actually kill someone. Before the 19th century one was probably more likely to survive a duel than the infections following a good brawl.
I'm starting to reconsider my objections. Maybe it should not only be legal. Maybe it should be mandatory for some people........as long as I get to decide who.Mike the Wolf said:
I did mean Dueling as a formal, structured event, and, with either single Shot Pistols, or, only one Cartridge each, for whatever Pistols are agreed on by the participants.
This being the antipodes of what could usually be called a 'Gun Fight' of course.
I see nothing whatever wrong with it.
And, possibly, I see quite a bit 'right' with it.
A person challenged to a Duel, has the choice, the option, to refuse.
Seems wholesome enough to me...and, society could well benifit for those guilty of malfeasances or misdemeanors, to be challenged, even challenged repeatedly, where, some shame at least might occur if they refuse, or, a better outcome, if they accept and perish, or accept and are wounded.
Phil
l v
This being the antipodes of what could usually be called a 'Gun Fight' of course.
I see nothing whatever wrong with it.
And, possibly, I see quite a bit 'right' with it.
A person challenged to a Duel, has the choice, the option, to refuse.
Seems wholesome enough to me...and, society could well benifit for those guilty of malfeasances or misdemeanors, to be challenged, even challenged repeatedly, where, some shame at least might occur if they refuse, or, a better outcome, if they accept and perish, or accept and are wounded.
Phil
l v
JImbothefiveth
Member
The question is are insults worth people losing their life over? I say they are not. If someone is that offended they can challenge them to a formal competition.
Why wouldn't they use modern firearms? One shot was pretty much the standard rule for all firearms when dueling was common.
General Geoff
Member
Depends on the people. Adults are individuals, not livestock. It is not society's job to tell them what they can and cannot do with their lives, so long as they don't infringe on others' rights (without due consent).
To you, this seems like a no-brainer. To me as well. but some people place a lot of value (right or wrong) in honour and petty slights.
That's what a duel IS.
sarduy
Member
Indifferent
Member
I feel if two consenting adults want to go and do what ever to each other, well then, have at it.
cliffy
member
A Duel
Once respected and admired, dueling has become politically incorrect. Is this merely a sign of our times, or has some of life's mystique disappeared from our times? Has honor and gallantry died, just as a woman must open her own car door today? Are we really advancing into the Twenty-First Century? I think males are merely becoming complacent and lazy and too politically correct. Open the darn door for your female companion, because it ain't that hard to do. Show her you're still a real man. AND call her "BABE," because that's what men are supposed to do. Cliffy
Once respected and admired, dueling has become politically incorrect. Is this merely a sign of our times, or has some of life's mystique disappeared from our times? Has honor and gallantry died, just as a woman must open her own car door today? Are we really advancing into the Twenty-First Century? I think males are merely becoming complacent and lazy and too politically correct. Open the darn door for your female companion, because it ain't that hard to do. Show her you're still a real man. AND call her "BABE," because that's what men are supposed to do. Cliffy
Bookworm
Member
I don't know of any laws forbidding dueling.
In my home state of NH, 2 consenting adults may fight on PRIVATE property without legal consequences. On public property, it was a misdemeanor.
In the service, it was common for variations of dueling challenges to be made. I was once chewed out when I was an E4 by an E7 for doing my job. I immediately challenged him to walk with me to the treeline to discuss it further. He shut up and walked away.
Later, when things began to become more politically correct, it was a trip to the on-base gym for some boxing PT (physical training). This is stuff I heard about all the time, and if we got into an argument with another marine, our superiors told us to go to the gym, put on some gloves, and work our problems out. That simple.
In my home state of NH, 2 consenting adults may fight on PRIVATE property without legal consequences. On public property, it was a misdemeanor.
In the service, it was common for variations of dueling challenges to be made. I was once chewed out when I was an E4 by an E7 for doing my job. I immediately challenged him to walk with me to the treeline to discuss it further. He shut up and walked away.
Later, when things began to become more politically correct, it was a trip to the on-base gym for some boxing PT (physical training). This is stuff I heard about all the time, and if we got into an argument with another marine, our superiors told us to go to the gym, put on some gloves, and work our problems out. That simple.
GregGry
Member
Name a state that allows the legal killing of one by another when consent is given, thats the closest your going to get to a state that might accept dueling as being legal after a long court battle.
A reciprocal consent to a formal Duel, would not be a consent for either to kill the other.
Consent or agreement to Duel, would be consent or agreement to Duel, "period".
- Both paries may miss
- One, or both parties might intentionally miss, shoot conspicuously into the ground, etc.
- One or both parties might be grazed, or be lightly wounded, or seriously wounded, or, seriously wounded where subsequent complications over however uch time, lead to death, or, could be contributory to their death
- One or both parties might be killed outright.
Bear in mind, two people facing eachother, each shooting one shot, at whatever disance apart the partys agree on, is no guarentee of anything, other than that a basic framework is observed.
Consent or agreement to Duel, would be consent or agreement to Duel, "period".
- Both paries may miss
- One, or both parties might intentionally miss, shoot conspicuously into the ground, etc.
- One or both parties might be grazed, or be lightly wounded, or seriously wounded, or, seriously wounded where subsequent complications over however uch time, lead to death, or, could be contributory to their death
- One or both parties might be killed outright.
Bear in mind, two people facing eachother, each shooting one shot, at whatever disance apart the partys agree on, is no guarentee of anything, other than that a basic framework is observed.
Do you know how much BS you have to go through in some places to own something you're constitutionally guaranteed? Can you imagine all the paper work and tax fees you'd have to file and pay in order to legally take someones life?!?!11one
I know you can get stuff like Boxing permits n whatnot. Im not sure how the statutes read, but I think it allows you and whoever else to duke it out and if someone dies, you're not liable and can't be criminally prosecuted.
I know you can get stuff like Boxing permits n whatnot. Im not sure how the statutes read, but I think it allows you and whoever else to duke it out and if someone dies, you're not liable and can't be criminally prosecuted.
Problems with dueling
#1 I don't want to have to pay for your kids because you couldn't keep your ego in check and got yourself shot dead in a duel
#2 I don't want to have to pay your medical bills, sustain you as a vegetable, or have to foot your unemployment bill because you had varying degrees of damage done to you in a duel
#3 If both parties must consent, what happens when one party revokes consent in the middle of the duel? Is the other person now a murderer? (note, you ALWAYS have the right to revoke consent in something relating to your body/physical well-being) Could one duelist turn and fire as fast as he could then shout 'I changed my mind!' guarnteeing a win or at least a draw?
#4 Wouldn't this simply evolve into a system where 'whoever is richest wins the duel' because they have the time to spend training and the money for the best coaches and the best equipment, both offensive and defensive. Indeed this is what happened in places where duels were legal...it was exclusive to the upper class because only they had the time to train and seek great teachers. Yes, there will always be a few naturally gifted working joes, but they will be few and far between.
#5 what happens when you have a sociopath that is rich or one of the naturally gifted, who goes around picking fights just so he can duel. He may even go to great lengths to disguise himself or his skill level like a pool huslter, but out for blood not for cash.
#6 what happens when person A duels person B, and person A wins. Then B2, B's son, feels obliged to duel, and successfully kills A. This is of course followed by A2 challeinging B2, etc. It is the normal human reaction to having a loved one die. What ever 'logic' you attempt to use to explain that it was A's choice and his death should not be held against B will not work, because humans are emotional beings capable of logic, not logical beings capable of emotion. You devolve into a series of Hatfield -vs- McCoy blood fueds. Again, where dueling was allowed, these types of situations didn't happen all the time, but they still happened A LOT.
#7 akin to #6, what happens when you duel to attack a person by proxy? Person A insults Person B. Person B refuses the duel (or maybe a duel isn't even mentioned) but then goes and finds Person A2 (A's son...or grandfather) and picks a fight with them for the purpose of killing them to get back at A.
#1 I don't want to have to pay for your kids because you couldn't keep your ego in check and got yourself shot dead in a duel
#2 I don't want to have to pay your medical bills, sustain you as a vegetable, or have to foot your unemployment bill because you had varying degrees of damage done to you in a duel
#3 If both parties must consent, what happens when one party revokes consent in the middle of the duel? Is the other person now a murderer? (note, you ALWAYS have the right to revoke consent in something relating to your body/physical well-being) Could one duelist turn and fire as fast as he could then shout 'I changed my mind!' guarnteeing a win or at least a draw?
#4 Wouldn't this simply evolve into a system where 'whoever is richest wins the duel' because they have the time to spend training and the money for the best coaches and the best equipment, both offensive and defensive. Indeed this is what happened in places where duels were legal...it was exclusive to the upper class because only they had the time to train and seek great teachers. Yes, there will always be a few naturally gifted working joes, but they will be few and far between.
#5 what happens when you have a sociopath that is rich or one of the naturally gifted, who goes around picking fights just so he can duel. He may even go to great lengths to disguise himself or his skill level like a pool huslter, but out for blood not for cash.
#6 what happens when person A duels person B, and person A wins. Then B2, B's son, feels obliged to duel, and successfully kills A. This is of course followed by A2 challeinging B2, etc. It is the normal human reaction to having a loved one die. What ever 'logic' you attempt to use to explain that it was A's choice and his death should not be held against B will not work, because humans are emotional beings capable of logic, not logical beings capable of emotion. You devolve into a series of Hatfield -vs- McCoy blood fueds. Again, where dueling was allowed, these types of situations didn't happen all the time, but they still happened A LOT.
#7 akin to #6, what happens when you duel to attack a person by proxy? Person A insults Person B. Person B refuses the duel (or maybe a duel isn't even mentioned) but then goes and finds Person A2 (A's son...or grandfather) and picks a fight with them for the purpose of killing them to get back at A.
Duel: a prearranged fight with deadly weapons by two people (accompanied by seconds) in order to settle a quarrel over a point of honor
When using the word duel you are implying certain facts about the 'fight' one of which is the presense of deadly weapons and the very real and relatively high possibility of serious injury up to death. Yes, it is possible both shooters may miss, or both swordsmen will be unable to draw blood until they both drop from fatigue, but that is not the expected outcome.
Fist fights, while not without the risk of serious injury or death, are a LOT less deadly than any sort of fight involving edge weapons or firearms. Should Fist Fighting or even Boxing Matches be a legal way for 2 parties to settle a dispute, well that is an entirely different question than what was asked.
if you are going to be that fast and loose with the definition of duel, then why not count challenging your opponent to a game of checkers, a breath holding contest, a cherry pit spitting contest, and term them all as duels.
While it would accomplish a few constructive activities such as reducing the number of idiots, it would get rid of those who want it to be legal, it would reduce the criminals who would insist that their gunfights were duels, and reduce our population through natural selection, it would be against a multitude of current laws and cause tons of unplanned deaths, and injuries through stray shots, etc. In order to safely do this it would have to be done in a firing range, not in public to protect bystanders.
Im sorry but my tax money already pays for enough useless crap and stupid lazy individuals, I dont want to have to pay for those who entered into a duel and became permanently disabled, now they leach off of me for the rest of their life.
An example of what happens, years ago Texas repealed its motorcycle helmet laws, then Oklahoma, that first year very few people rode cycles without helmets. That following year the number of deaths by fatal cycle crash went up, the number of serious crashes with head, and neck injuries costing over $100,000 went WAY up causing the insurance industry to raise the rates of all cycle riders countrywide, and to get a law passed preventing cycle insurance from paying medical bills until they exceed $100,000 in almost all states.
So why would I want to pay for more vegetables who participated in duels? Find another country that allows it, go for a vacation, and keep it secret when you return. Im sure the US will still go for criminal charges if you dueled to the death outside the US because you are a citizen.
Keep it illegal here.
Im sorry but my tax money already pays for enough useless crap and stupid lazy individuals, I dont want to have to pay for those who entered into a duel and became permanently disabled, now they leach off of me for the rest of their life.
An example of what happens, years ago Texas repealed its motorcycle helmet laws, then Oklahoma, that first year very few people rode cycles without helmets. That following year the number of deaths by fatal cycle crash went up, the number of serious crashes with head, and neck injuries costing over $100,000 went WAY up causing the insurance industry to raise the rates of all cycle riders countrywide, and to get a law passed preventing cycle insurance from paying medical bills until they exceed $100,000 in almost all states.
So why would I want to pay for more vegetables who participated in duels? Find another country that allows it, go for a vacation, and keep it secret when you return. Im sure the US will still go for criminal charges if you dueled to the death outside the US because you are a citizen.
Keep it illegal here.
- Status