Do you think we should be allowed to have duels legally today?
I think it would reduce a lot of crime.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
40 Answers
Seems to me it would create more crime. After all, duels are about honor, and if one person gets killed in a duel, that’s one more murder than there should have been. This idea is ridiculous!
Can you give us an example of how a crime would be prevented by dueling (aside from the obvious legal slight of hand of legalizing a killing that wouldn’t have been legal otherwise)?
Only Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olberman.
Yes! Absolutely. I’d either be dead or a lot of people would be dead. One or the other, but yes duels should be legal.
ok first off the question is somewhat tongue in cheek so don’t get too riled up. But it would get rid of many individuals prone to committing crime. I heard a statistic that says that 6% of the population commits like 75%of crime. I imagine that these guys would be more likely to get in duels than others. So if even a few hardcore criminals got killed in duels then crime would go down. but again this isn’t a really serious proposition.
You cannot prevent crime by allowing private citizens to resolve their differences with violence.
Seems to me that violent criminals would be not at all inclined to get into duels. They’re going to want to surprise their victims and pop a cap on their ass. A fair duel would be the last thing they’d want.
I think for electing a President.
When we get down to the final candidates.
It would be a big legal mess. Remember, you have to have seconds, etc. The rules were written in archaic times- just wouldn’t work nowadays.
Yes, ...... definitely…as a 1 year trial period…!!
That is at least long enough so that all the NRA members could square off against each other…... I would predict that after 3 months half of them would be dead…..... after 6 months ¾ ths of them would be dead…..... after 9 months 88% would be dead…..... etc…... you get my drift…....
Nobody else in the country would stick their head up out of the foxhole until this 1 year trial period had died out <pun intended…..>
Well, I think it would be a good idea if there was a way to ensure that both parties were fully consenting to the act and relative consequences of the duel, i.e. some sort of paperwork that they signed prior to dueling.
Otherwise, what would stop someone from shooting someone and then claiming that they were having a duel?
Also, they couldn’t occur just anywhere… there would have to be regional dueling centers that have walls or barriers so as not to injure any bystanders. Then again, how would these dueling centers be funded?
@virtualist You pissa me off; pistols at sundown at the ok florale.
@NewZen
…...my God…. we have the makings of the ULTIMATE REALITY TV SERIES….. I can speak about it now , as I have already filed this idea with my patent attorney…....
I’m sort of inclined to say yes because I feel like people should be able to do whatever with their lives/bodies and if they want to risk it in a duel, so be it. However, I think the duels of yore, at least the gun duels, are pretty stupid. Much like trench warfare, it boggles my mind. You walk a few paces and see who can shoot who first? I dunno.. it’s a romantic idea, but I find the reality of it to be stupid.
One bonus is that it could serve as chlorinator for the gene pool, I suppose..
There’s no honor in resorting to violence and since so many duels were fought over whether or not a woman was chaste, we can only expect the mass destruction of men…wait a minute, can I change my vote?
It would certainly enlarge the dramatic possibilities for authors and screenwriters.
Yes. A friend of mine and I have an agreement to duel to the death (with swords) at age 75.
@mowens – Wow. I have the best mental image of that. lolz.
I think we’ll be looking at a Robert Sheckley future where the suicide act will be passed and people can end their lives as they see fit, including being a human target on television.
If it were to become legal, the rules would need to be revised for Southern California, as no one here carries gloves (I suppose one could throw one’s cocktail napkin or take-out food wrapper before the offender). See ya….Gary/wtf
only if I can slap someone with a glove beforehand.
Well, it seemed to work out ok in Firefly…
Yes, but only if you used fish as weapons. (Fake fish for the animals sake?)
No. But here’s the history lesson:
Duels were originally a viable form of conflict resolution (maybe) when it was essentially impossible to determine who was right and who was wrong. The idea was that the two conflicting parties would duke it out and God would see that the right guy won. Of course it didn’t take ages for people to notice that you didn’t need the moral high ground to win a duel. Winners were more likely to share an aptitude for fighting and killing. But by that time it was too late to just stop.
Idle nobles transformed dueling into a means of establishing male selfworth and developed elaborate social rituals leading up to duels. Sometimes going through the motions required was enough and the duel never happened, sometimes not. The invention of pistols was one of the great equalizers of duels and soon men of the lowest classes were challenging eachother, that killed some of the allure for nobles.
Europe had mostly given up on duels while Americans kept at eachother. Americans were never particularly concerned with the rules the Europeans had developed for duel, many of which were designed to keep fatalities down. Americans would show up to duels with shotguns and bullwhips, but the classic American choice for a duel was a pistol and a Bowie knife. The reasoning was that your pistol might misfire, but your Bowie knife never would.
Eventually the more civilized north turned up it’s nose at the barbarity of dueling. It continued in the South and the frontier and eventually devolved into cowboy type challenges. There wasn’t any time or place, just a promise that the next time the two bumped into eachother someone would die.
What finally killed the duel once and for all was the World War. Suddenly all of the hot blooded young men (and the rest of them) were shipped off to the trenches and when they got back they just didn’t have anything else to prove. They knew they were men and they no longer needed to face death to know it.
For more info check out Gentlemen’s Blood.
Duels don’t reduce crime, they are a violent crime. It took hundreds of years to get rid of them and they haven’t been truely abolished in America for even 100 years. Let’s not go down that road again.
Two Words: Blood Feuds. They would be revived.
We should have organized duels. It will partially clean up the gene pool.
“I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot and kill him.”
– Autobiography of Mark Twain
In actuality Mark Twain received many challenges but seems to have ducked out of all of them (smart guy). He once received three while staying in Nevada, he snuck out of the state the night before the appointed time. Back then journalists and editors were frequent duelists since it was essentially their job to ridicule people who thought pistols made the best rebuttals.
@NewZen lol i don’t see the relevance
allowed?
ALLOWED?
We ought not be seeking to be allowed anything.
There is far too much socialism as it is.
A RETURN TO HONOR would be an excellent starting point
@BBQsomeCows lol I don’t think socialism has much to do with it welcome to fluther
@jaketheripper OOpsie – I think I added that link in the wrong thread (my eyes are bad). Sorry. Great Q tho! Surprised you haven’t been given more lurve.
Answer this question 
