-- Posted by Mein Alias at 12:23 am on July 3, 2009 I believe that America should reinstate institutions allowing formal dueling with a single-handed low caliber pistol, including the three steps turn and shoot routine. It seems that people no longer have any accountability. They are allowed to say the dumbest, most arrogant, most ignorant things to others and expect to walk away with nothing more than a bloody nose. The police is allowed to intervene with even the most petty domestic disputes. Dueling would bring back some sort of tribal honor system that would cause trouble makers to think more is at stake than some flesh wounds. Refuting a duel is a very, very bad thing. We could allow districts to designate a dueling arena, have regulations to mandate weapons be in performing condition, ultra-fast sliding glass doors to prevent premature firing, and enforce that both combatants have a will signed and approved by the district attorney. I love this idea so much. -- Posted by Seafercat at 12:24 am on July 3, 2009 no. verbose verbose verbose verbose verbose verbose -- Posted by ToyJetpack at 12:24 am on July 3, 2009 That's stupid. Here's why. Me: You're an idiot, I challenge you to a duel. Idiot: No thanks. -- Posted by medjai at 12:35 am on July 3, 2009 The interesting thing about duels is that almost nobody ever died in them. The guns were so accurate, that accepting a duel was always your best option since you retain your honor with almost no risk at all. A duel ended after both have fired, regardless of whether or not one or both missed. In the latter (most common) case, one could engage in several duels ending in a draw with no exceptional skill necessary, just on the odds that he won't get hit. Outlawing duels of that nature (almost no risk and always as a matter of statement of honor and family pride) was stupid, and one real mistake that I believe actually has "degraded our morality" as time has progressed. I agree with you on this issue, apparently 100%. There would need to be strict implementation of the use of standardized, extremely inaccurate blackpowder firing pistols and a strict protocol which was to be followed, and officials even, working on a government level to enforce the actuation and conclusion of duels (a third party who referees on behalf of the state, which openly allows and even encourages the practice and tradition of dueling). Dueling by its very nature requires consent from all parties involved, but when such consent can be achieved there is no reason to stop it from happening. At any point up to the point that the men are set to begin firing may someone back down from a duel. Safe, unharmed, and facing no physical or psychological retribution for having done so. The arbitrator shall declare the issue settled, and neither party could dwell on it for legal purposes any further. Conditionally, Duels should have standing in court, as an assumption of contract is made upon the acceptance of a duel that in the case that it does not end in a draw (rare), the winning party, regardless of the welfare of the other participant wins any and all claim or settlement on which the duel was agreed on. Equipment that could be worn in a duel (no bulletproof vests, helmets, or other such ballistic protection), colors worn, and even whether or not sunglasses were permitted would be controlled on a government level. I think it would be a valid establishment. -- Posted by Audioblood at 12:38 am on July 3, 2009 I don't necessarily think there is a specific law preventing two consenting people from conducting a traditional duel. On the other hand, I do think many people have gained enough common sense to realize that arguing with guns isn't generally a good idea, especially over something as inane as you're suggesting. -- Posted by Charolastra at 12:43 am on July 3, 2009 Since this topic is actually being given serious thought, I'm just going to ask why the government should ever acknowledge or help referee this inane tradition, for lack of a better term. It should remain outlawed and if you accidentally kill someone in the process, then you should go to jail for it and come back to a plane of reality amongst the rest of the civil society. -- Posted by medjai at 12:49 am on July 3, 2009 I forgot to mention that on top of the incredible inaccuracy of their guns, most of the time in a duel, neither party really wanted to kill their opponent, and would miss intentionally and just hope they were missed as well, since they didn't enter the duel to kill someone but just instead just to show how strongly they felt about their position or that they had been wronged. -- Posted by hI jAMES at 1:03 am on July 3, 2009 This practice seems...odd. I don't know why we would want to specifically encourage murder and have a "natural selection" stance with people who argue over shit that is probably trivial to begin with. I don't think this practice would encourage accountability either. Just how much accountable are you going to be for your actions if you're dead? Also, how would people think twice about what they say or do if they have to duel? If anything, the person that wins the duel will just be more cocky, arrogant, and bold. This "duel" doesn't help the issue, but repeats the cycle. -- Posted by Audioblood at 1:03 am on July 3, 2009 Quote: from medjai at 12:49 am on July 3, 2009 I forgot to mention that on top of the incredible inaccuracy of their guns, most of the time in a duel, neither party really wanted to kill their opponent, and would miss intentionally and just hope they were missed as well, since they didn't enter the duel to kill someone but just instead just to show how strongly they felt about their position or that they had been wronged. I can do that very thing with bold and underline. Or, for the really important stuff, BOLD-UNDERLINED-CAPS-LOCK. I can see what you're saying...but really, if two people feel so strongly about an argument that they would wish to do something so...subjective...well...natural selection, and all that. -- Posted by Elm at 9:13 am on July 3, 2009 Absolutely.  If people wish to enter into a duel let them.  It is nobody's business besides the consenting parties. -- Posted by Takinam at 1:55 pm on July 8, 2009 Quote: from Mein Alias at 12:23 am on July 3, 2009 I believe that America should reinstate institutions allowing formal dueling with a single-handed low caliber pistol, including the three steps turn and shoot routine. It seems that people no longer have any accountability. They are allowed to say the dumbest, most arrogant, most ignorant things to others and expect to walk away with nothing more than a bloody nose. The police is allowed to intervene with even the most petty domestic disputes. Dueling would bring back some sort of tribal honor system that would cause trouble makers to think more is at stake than some flesh wounds. Refuting a duel is a very, very bad thing. We could allow districts to designate a dueling arena, have regulations to mandate weapons be in performing condition, ultra-fast sliding glass doors to prevent premature firing, and enforce that both combatants have a will signed and approved by the district attorney.   I love this idea so much. I absolustely agree, except with the method of dueling. I prefer swords - it'd be awesome. I'd just draw and be like.. " Hiyo, Elm, I challenge you to a duel. Let us hope your sword is as sharp as your tongue. " And then when I win, I'll wipe my bloody sabre on his brooches. " Aha, dear Elm. I have vanquished you; like a bleeding bird, you lie before me...wincing...and cowering..and trying to crawl away..to fly away. It's sickening. " --- In actuality though, this is idiotic. Why waste my time with a gun that'll most likely miss when I can take a baseball bat to your head? Why not just play chess to solve problems? Jezuz, people fight because they want then opponent to feel pain. IF a gun misses, no one feels pain and the problem isn't solved. If I missed, I'd grab a baseball bat and take it to your head (not very hard, but I'd make sure you were hit). That solves my problem right there. -- Posted by Elm at 3:01 pm on July 10, 2009 The challlenger doesn't get to pick the weapons - the challenged does.  Thats to keep things fair.  The challenger could very well pick chess, as well as a riddle contest. -- Posted by InsaneBlue at 10:52 pm on July 10, 2009 Sounds fine to me. The institution should be completely funded by those who take advantage of it and not by every average-joe taxpayer though. EDIT: And super-accurate modern weapons should be fine as long as the two have equal arms. If two guys want to fuck each other up, one of them should get fucked up or the problem hasn't been ended. Besides, this is something that is completely the business of two consenting individuals, thus the government shouldn't disallow it just because people die. The only good reasons to outlaw it are financial and logistical, since in our day the government would need to moderate the duels, keeping an eye out for foul-play, or else they would probably end up just being murders, with one guy turning too quickly and just shooting the other guy in the back or something along those lines. -- Posted by LittleItaly at 12:52 pm on July 13, 2009 They should because many of the important figures in our couuntry's history have taken part in them, it's a part of our heritage as a nation and if both parties agree, then i don't see the problem, i'd like to duel barney frank tbh -- Posted by libertine at 2:54 am on July 24, 2009 what the hell? okay say there's a duel, you agree on three steps and turn. guy #1 takes two steps, turns and kills guy #2. Sure he cheated and so will be punished for it, but guy #1 has just been killed totally unfairly. how exactly can you stop that? -- Posted by Elm at 7:08 pm on July 24, 2009 Quote: from libertine at 2:54 am on July 24, 2009 what the hell? okay say there's a duel, you agree on three steps and turn. guy #1 takes two steps, turns and kills guy #2. Sure he cheated and so will be punished for it, but guy #1 has just been killed totally unfairly. how exactly can you stop that? Just kill him right back. -- Posted by libertine at 2:42 am on July 27, 2009 then you have two dead people on your hands, one of whom has been killed unlawfully and unfairly because of a state sanctioned practice. great. fab. -- Posted by Neodymie at 8:43 pm on July 27, 2009 Ok first of all there's no reason that it shouldn't be legal as long as both parties consent. Second, I think most of you are missing the point. It's more proactive than reactive. If you know there's a chance that you could be challenged to a duel and possibly killed, would you run your mouth off and be as much of an asshole in general as you are now? If you feel strongly about what you're arguing, maybe but if you're just spewing bullshit, probably not. -- Posted by Elm at 10:35 am on July 31, 2009 Quote: from libertine at 2:42 am on July 27, 2009 then you have two dead people on your hands, one of whom has been killed unlawfully and unfairly because of a state sanctioned practice. great. fab. Having something be legal does not mean the state sanctions its practice. What an odd view of government.  I suppose its the difference between being a subject and being a citizen. -- Posted by Merilyn at 10:44 pm on Aug. 28, 2009 Seems to me that the whole point of having the right to free speech is being able to speak one's mind without fearing punishment (excluding threats and slander and the like). I think allowing people to shoot one another over such a thing would take away from that. I agree that people should watch what they say more closely but there are a lot of things people should do that they most likely never will but for the most part, they're free to do it without harm coming to them.