Should Duels be Legal again?

**Lugotorix** · May 17, 2005, 02:30 AM

Please provide reason for the way you voted.

I vote yes strongly because the people who do the most horrible indignities to one's honor are more often than not cowards, who hide behind the law and anomynity. There should be a method for addressing these insults in a way that the offender who declines should be publicly recognized for his decision.

**Gelatinous Cube** · May 17, 2005, 02:32 AM

If two people wanna kill eachother, that's their choice.

**bigfootedfred** · May 17, 2005, 02:33 AM

youd just have people shooting each other and claiming it was a duel.....

**Lugotorix** · May 17, 2005, 02:50 AM

I would propose that each duel would be attended publicly by loved ones, families, friends, a holy man to see the loser off, and an official of some sort to record the events. If someone was killed without these conditions, it would, of course be considered murder. Also, I would suggest melee combat (swords, maces, hatchets, spears etc.) as they are a greater test of the participants character, strength, and skill. The accuser would have the dignity of dying fighting, or correcting the insult, and any individual who declined such a sacred contest would be marked as such by the official, for the rest of his life, perhaps by branding.

**Gelatinous Cube** · May 17, 2005, 02:54 AM

I think if two people wanna duel, they should have to go get permission from Court to do so, proving that neither party is under compulsion by the other, and then the terms and rules of the duel should be overseen by a state or federal official. :cool

**Lugotorix** · May 17, 2005, 03:06 AM

If local police or federal agents were involved exclusively, the chance for corruption would be too high.....I insist that there should be representatives of both sides present to bear witness. Anyone who declined such a challenge should be recorded as such by the state or city, along with his reasons, addressing the grievance of the accuser.

**hannibal89** · May 17, 2005, 03:09 AM

what if the offender did it knowing he was a better swordsman, better gunman and a bad ******.
Then the law is more effective...

**Turnus** · May 17, 2005, 03:10 AM

If one declines a duel they are branded on the cheek as a coward (and other parts of the body as it becomes neccesary), and their title is changed to Cwd. (Coward) for life, so that every member of society knows of their pathetic cowardice. If a duel is declined, the state provides for the cowardly party a champion to fight for them. If said champion dies, the coward must pay huge sums of money as compensation for this champion's life, and may have to contribute services to the champion's family or the state (slave-debt). If a champion succeeds in a duel, the coward has this champion's name branded across their forehead, and is officially noted as the champion's servant.

**Garbarsardar** · May 17, 2005, 03:27 AM

I support gun control but I want duels to be reinstated. Can I vote for melee only?

**Lugotorix** · May 17, 2005, 03:48 AM

Good ideas Turnus. I like your thought process.

Unfortunately Garb, I cannot edit the poll perameters after posting. I would also only vote for melee. So from now on that is the operative on voting yes. Anyone who supports pistol duels like Aaron Burr and Hamilton, please state your reasons. I find them barbaric, and too simple for such a serious matter.

Keep in mind that these grievances would only be raised in extreme circumstances, with mandatory evidence and witnesses to attest to the insult. The accused party would have a chance to refute any bogus claims.
Both parties would be given a period of one week to train in their weapon of choice, with a state or family appointed master.

I would suggest marital adultery, murder above the law, extreme instances of libel, plagiarism and extortion. Cruel and unsual methods of torture and repeated personal insults would also fall into this jurisdiction.
The rules of the duel would be decided by each party: Weapons to be used, whether Quarter is an option, and the council or court moderating such events would decide the victor in the event that one individual was incapacitated and unable to continue the fight and Quarter was given.

**Xiaodun** · May 17, 2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Turnus@May 17 2005, 03:10 AM
If one declines a duel they are branded on the cheek as a coward (and other parts of the body as it becomes neccesary), and their title is changed to Cwd. (Coward) for life, so that every member of society knows of their pathetic cowardice. If a duel is declined, the state provides for the cowardly party a champion to fight for them. If said champion dies, the coward must pay huge sums of money as compensation for this champion's life, and may have to contribute services to the champion's family or the state (slave-debt). If a champion succeeds in a duel, the coward has this champion's name branded across their forehead, and is officially noted as the champion's servant.

Absolutely not. This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I heard.

If a guy who is a master swordsman and a proffessional shooter demaded a duel to a completely amatuer, then the amatuer has a choice of being killed or enslaved.

As a result, good shooters will rule society, and society will break down.

Dueling is an idiotic thing. To solve problems with violence is an act of beasts, isnt that what preschools teach? A civilized man should use words, anyone who pulls out a gun is a pathetic person, unworthy of living in human society.

**Turnus** · May 17, 2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by deathdoom56@May 17 2005, 04:30 AM
Absolutely not. This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I heard.

If a guy who is a master swordsman and a proffessional shooter demaded a duel to a completely amatuer, then the amatuer has a choice of being killed or enslaved.

As a result, good shooters will rule society, and society will break down.

Dueling is an idiotic thing. To solve problems with violence is an act of beasts, isnt that what preschools teach? A civilized man should use words, anyone who pulls out a gun is a pathetic person, unworthy of living in human society.

I voted No! :lol It was just a joke.

**Gelatinous Cube** · May 17, 2005, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by deathdoom56@May 17 2005, 03:30 AM
Absolutely not. This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I heard.

If a guy who is a master swordsman and a proffessional shooter demaded a duel to a completely amatuer, then the amatuer has a choice of being killed or enslaved.

As a result, good shooters will rule society, and society will break down.

Dueling is an idiotic thing. To solve problems with violence is an act of beasts, isnt that what preschools teach? A civilized man should use words, anyone who pulls out a gun is a pathetic person, unworthy of living in human society.

I would be opposed to dueling as some form of policy making. I wouldn't be opposed to dueling as a legal activity between two consenting adults.

**MadBurgerMaker** · May 17, 2005, 04:48 AM

No.

Duals are a dumbass way of solving stupid little problems.

"You called me a name?!?! I DEMAND A DUEL!!!!!!!"

Every Friday and Saturday night, there would be millions of deaths as drunks got into fights over...whatever we fight about when we're drunk ( :lol ), demanded duals, and killed each other. Yay.

**Sulla** · May 17, 2005, 05:05 AM

Yeah sure... Why not regress backwards. I believe people in the 'no' camp have perfectly expressed my views without needing to repeat them.

And I bet a few of you in the 'yes' camp would suddenly change your mind as the bullet enters your heart. Life is not a shoot 'em up game. You only have one life.

**ximan** · May 17, 2005, 02:42 PM

No, because then when I make a smart comment or piss someone off, I have a chance of losing my life.

**ajimenez3** · May 17, 2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by MadBurgerMaker@May 17 2005, 04:48 AM
No.

Duals are a dumbass way of solving stupid little problems.

"You called me a name?!?! I DEMAND A DUEL!!!!!!!"

Every Friday and Saturday night, there would be millions of deaths as drunks got into fights over...whatever we fight about when we're drunk ( :lol ), demanded duals, and killed each other. Yay.

Would be a good way of getting rid of the Morons in the world. Pretty soon the only people left would be the ones who know how to be civil to each other after all the a-holes kill each other off. :lol

Semper Fi

**Quintus Valerius** · May 17, 2005, 02:47 PM

No, although I have to admit that one of my favourite film's is Ridley Scott's, "The Duellists", and the whole concept of duelling has fascinated me all my life.

**Invoker** · May 17, 2005, 02:56 PM

I truly hope the person who made this post was joking...

Seriously, the answer to this question is: NO.

I don't think explanation is really that necessary.

**God-Emperor of Mankind** · May 17, 2005, 03:08 PM

No.
You can solve your issues with a good old fist fight.

View Poll Results: Should melee and pistol duels be legal?

Thread: Should Duels be Legal again?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Posting Permissions