Would you be in support of legalizing gun duels? Seems like if 2 people agree on the terms, and understanding the high chance of death there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to duel in a safe setting.
Lethal pistol duels were not all that common when they where legal. The two pissed gentlemen would pace out then turn to fire but usually they would shoot the pistol into the air. It was mostly dickwaving and preserving ones honor or ego.
Duels were an aristocratic tool to allow violence between equals of a higher class. Dueling is now largely unnecessary because of egalitarian ideals in many western societies.
That being said I believe whole-heartedly that you should not be able to remove a persons life, liberty or property without due process so I think duels could be allowed if the person being challenged were put through due process first in some sort of manner.
>Seems like if 2 people agree on the terms, and understanding the high chance of death there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed
Agreed, and it's the same reason why I think gladiator fights should be legal as well.
There is a market for that, don't act like you wouldn't watch that shit. I'm sure there would be more than enough volunteers dawn on their luck with nothing to lose and much to gain.
black powder muzzle loaders or swords, only.
a strict contract. everything needs to be witnessed by the local sheriff department. the sheriff and at least 2 deputies and an EMT need to be present.
when someone says yield or is no longer capable of defending them selves. it is over and a winner is declared.
>dickwaving and preserving ones honor or ego
Exactly. It was "chivalry theater", that occasionally became violent.
In iowa our Constitution stated that if you were in a duel or had knowlade of a duel you could not run for political office in the state.
We actually spent the time and money to ammend it and get rid of that.
Now i can get into a duel and run for office.
Let's legalize gladiator combat first.
Seems like if two convicted killers who have life sentences want to rip each others throats out on pay per view with the understanding that a small portion of the profit goes to their own families and the families of their victim, there is no reason this wouldn't benefit society.
Taxpayers would get to stop paying for one of them completely and see a true blood fest, the victims would get small recompense, and the state can recoup legal and administrative fees.
The Code Duello
Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.
Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.
N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.
Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.
Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.
Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.
If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.
N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.
In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.
Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)
N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.
Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.
Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.
Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.
Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.
Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.
Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.
Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.
Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.
Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.
Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.
Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.
Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.
Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.
Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.
Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.
Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.
Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.
Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.
Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:
If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.
N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose.
that's some vintage airshit.
Gun duels where pretty cool, but it soon degenerated in a easy way of killing someone legaly, without breaking a sweat
>one guy is too noisy, you want him dead, but assassinating him would raise suspicion.
>pay some high-class thug to insult him / fuck his wife.
>the poor fucker have no other choice but to provoke him in a duel, otherwise he'll have to live with the " KEK " stamp on his forehead.
>the hired gun win the duel, because he's more trained that the other guy.
That was a big thing in the 19th. It would be worse nowadays.
Sword duel, first blood, on the other hand, would be great today, especially in politics.
>You will never have a blunderbuss duel in hot air balloons
>mfw I realize this means we could have Bill Clinton fighting Trump.
>Trump comes to the fighting ring surrounded by Miss Americas
>Bill flirts with them
Fuck, I'd pay to see this fight, even though Bill is way past his prime too.
I feel the same way about fist fighting. I grew up in the ghetto and scrapping was how we settled beef. It wasn't a matter of winning/losing as much as it was about releasing anger. Pretty healthy if you ask me.
If both parties consented to it and signed a contract, i'm all for it.
i kind of agree
back when i was in school there was 1 serious fight (there were occasional small issues that popped up here and there) a year where 2 guys would be talking shit for days then finally agree to meet somewhere and fight and they never went too far, sure there would be bloody noses or black eyes but once it was clear 1 of the fighters had lost it would end, no kicking people on the ground, no stomping on their head or smashing it into the ground type niggatry
both people went home alive and in 1 piece and whatever the issue was seemed to be over
Get on my level, you Democratic-Republican.