NationStates Jolt Archive

I refer to dueling with swords, or pistols. Should it be legal? Should it be regulated? Would you participate?

No, no, and no. It would be easy to exploit to freely murder people.

I don't think we need more barbarity in the world.

the regulations would be so onerous that it would take all the fun out of duelling.

voluminous paperwork, background searches, permissions, family member waivers of responsibility, certifications in various possible weapon choices, phsychological exams, proof of insurance, the list would go on and on.

I refer to dueling with swords, or pistols. Should it be legal? Should it be regulated? Would you participate?

Dueling should become the new way of resolving civil lawsuits. Instead of using lawyers, you have a duelist, they fight to a set point, winner takes all. Quickens things up, and no more out of court settlements. And yes, I would parcipitate, swords at three paces, first blood drawn from the torso. *nod*

No, of course. That was an easy question.

As long as no one is forced into it. I see no reason why the government should prevent us all from killing each other as long as everyone is consenting.

And yeah, if consensual duels were legal there'd be a few throats slit by my hand. :)

The thing about dueling is half of the duelers die in every duel

It would be pretty friggin hard to implement. But if enough people want to duel, and it is between two consensual independent parties, then yes.

Yes, yes, and no.

Two consenting adults, personal responsibility, blah blah blah.

But I qualify that with the condition that you add banjos to the list of available weapons.

As long as no one is forced into it. I see no reason why the government should prevent us all from killing each other as long as everyone is consenting.

And yeah, if consensual duels were legal there'd be a few throats slit by my hand. :)

Or Your throat slit a few times by someone's hand :)

The thing about dueling is half of the duelers die in every duel

Well then, in a few years it shouldn't be a problem

Indeed. The half-life of the duellists would be far shorter than most nuclear waste, so I wouldn't be worried.

I know that with the stipulation of "consenting adults" it is hard to find a point to object. But I think it is barbaric. I also believe that violence (lethal violence even) should not even be in the hand of the state - I'm anti-death-penalty - let alone in the hand of its citizens.

Or Your throat slit a few times by someone's hand :)

Luckily, I can only die once.

Seriously though, I'm one of those people who could guiltlessly kill anyone who deserved it.

I refer to dueling with swords, or pistols. Should it be legal? Should it be regulated? Would you participate?

Are clubs, maces and knives in?

I think duelling with paint ball guns would be much more entertaining, and less deadly.

Only with pies. *nod*

The thing about dueling is half of the duelers die in every duel

Actually both participants generally walk away with a few wounds. You should study the matter.

only if both parties are registered blood donors.

The real question here is should there be a maximum number of posts allowed that you manage to wedge the word dueling or a sword of some sort into? ;)

Actually both participants generally walk away with a few wounds. You should study the matter.

It was a joke and you ruined it :sniper:

I'm not sure I'd fancy a system where the better swordsman or marksman has higher legal rights.

As long as no one is forced into it. I see no reason why the government should prevent us all from killing each other as long as everyone is consenting.

The problem with this consent thing is that many reluctant people would feel obliged to duel due to peer pressure. In times when dueling was common, those, who refused to accept a challenge were often considered cowards, which could easily lead to social ostracism. So, just because someone gives his consent, it doesn't mean that he's not forced into it.


Anyway, it's easy to come up with scenarios, where the option to duel would sound like a good idea. For example, if someone murdered someone close to me, I would like to have an opportunity to cut out the middle man and settle the score by myself. Of course, then I'd run the risk of dying in the process myself, so I'd prefer if I'd just have the right to stab him in the back when he's expecting it the least.

In any case, giving the option to any kind of violent self-justice (apart from self-defence) would remove the whole 'justice'-part, and we'd be left with "might makes right". There are a few people I'd love to legally murd-- erm, duel, but all things considered, keeping duels banned is better for everyone in the long run.

Yeah, as interesting as it would sound, it's just too hard to implement, and in my mind, we do have superior ways (in theory) of dealing with civil problems in the court of law. Nobody dies (or at least should die) if they sue somebody. We've evolved beyond that as human beings.

Though duels would be great fun to watch...

only if both parties are registered blood donors.

..and organ donors too. but like the other person said there are too many legalities and too much paperwork now days.

Provided regulation to prevent its abuse, and if the participants would pay for all the work involved in such, I see no issue. Would hardly do it myself except in the most exceptional of circumstances, though.

Personaly I think it'd be pretty fun if you could duel. I'd probly wind up like a professional dueler or something though.

But I qualify that with the condition that you add banjos to the list of available weapons.

What about pianos? :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCt28z7DHW8

Actually both participants generally walk away with a few wounds. You should study the matter.

Well if you read the topic, it has to do with guns as well... People are bound to die, quick-draw wild-west style...

I refer to dueling with swords, or pistols. Should it be legal? Should it be regulated? Would you participate?

Dueling with guns? Primative, crude, and tasteless.

Swords however should completely be legalized, regulated (as a contract between both 'players' signed by a notary, and the even itself witnessed of course), and yes, I would more than likely participate, although how many times is something that I cannot answer, as I don't think I am very good....

Yes, with matched swords and pistols being provided by the Ministry of Dueling.

It would be pretty cool, and fairly gentlemanly. And if both parties are willing, which they would have to be, or it's hardly a duel, then yeah, fine.

I think duelling with paint ball guns would be much more entertaining, and less deadly.

I belong to a paintball forum called Automags Online (it is a forum owned by Air Gun Designs, makers of the Automag), and from time to time we used to get together with other forum members in our region (sometimes, out of our region), to play paintball (with dinner and/or a party afterwards). During one of these events for the New England area, we had dueling. It was Sydarms at 10 paces, and it was great to watch (most of the people fired the entire tube of paint, about 10 rounds, with a lot of misses). Unfortunately, I didn't participate in this event, as I was still trying to get a problem worked out with my marker so I could play in the events 3 person random team tourney.

I think it would be awesome if you could legally settle court cases through pointless competitions. Imagine winning a lawsuit with a pokemon battle. Or you could just do rock paper sissors.

Dueling with guns? Primative, crude, and tasteless.

Swords however should completely be legalized, regulated (as a contract between both 'players' signed by a notary, and the even itself witnessed of course), and yes, I would more than likely participate, although how many times is something that I cannot answer, as I don't think I am very good....

You're not perchance a fencer like myself, are you? :D

Yes, absolutely. With swords and such only, of course.

Dueling is legal isn't it? If you kill someone in a duel, isn't that self-defense?

I used to do fencing. Epee FTW!

I refer to dueling with swords, or pistols. Should it be legal? Should it be regulated? Would you participate?

Yes, yes, and it would depend on the circumstances.

I should point out this anecdote that my anthro prof said a few years back about these two societies where, when they have some significant issue that would turn to violence, one "side" would amass on one hill viewing a valley, and the other would be atop the opposite. The two groups would rush and charge down the hills at each other, with advancing and retreating with blunted sticks until someone *actually* got hurt (other than being really fatigued), then they'd go hash it out over a malt. Or some other kind of beverage.

There are *so* many types of duels i can think of, and i'm sure LG will offer some good ones.

Yes, it should.

Dueling worked in Iceland well into the 20th century.

"To submission" or "to disarm" could be legal conditions set, as well as "to first blood." If you could knock your opponent's sword out of their hand, we'd have bloodless dueling.

Another system that I really like is the old Native American tradition of "counting coup." Get close enough to your opponent to tap them with a special stick.

Did anyone see the last episode of "Last Man Standing?" In Nagaland, warriors kickbox in a 20x20 foot space, with the aim of either making their opponent fall (hands on the ground constitutes a fall) or force them out of the ring.

Maybe not dueling per se, but I think gamecraft should be a legal means of settling dispute. I'd much rather chess my way through the courts than gut my life savings and undergo months of emotional turmoil via a lawsuit.

Yes! It should be legal, and I would do it. I think any melee weapon should be allowed.

Yes. Firelocks at 10 paces should be the accepted way of settling affronts to honor.

The thing about dueling is half of the duelers die in every duel

Few duels were ever to the death. ;)

Anyway, pistols are too accurate nowadays to be practical, and few people know how to use a sword. So dueling wouldn't be much use to the average person.

I think it would be awesome if you could legally settle court cases through pointless competitions. Imagine winning a lawsuit with a pokemon battle. Or you could just do rock paper sissors.

My vote is through MXC!
Guy LeDouche, our saviour.

What, is fencing not enough for you guys? You need to draw blood?

Sometimes you all creep me out a little.

What, is fencing not enough for you guys? You need to draw blood?

Sometimes you all creep me out a little.

Eh? Haven't you ever seen "Barry Lyndon?" Dueling is kickass. :cool:

What, is fencing not enough for you guys? You need to draw blood?


Well, to the surface at least. :p

Why is the question always "Should X be legalised?"

Shouldn't it be "Why should X be illegal?" Isn't the default stance to let people do as they please, unless there is a good reason to stop them?

Should dueling be legalized?

Yes. But only if the weapon is a strap-on.

Why is the question always "Should X be legalised?"

Shouldn't it be "Why should X be illegal?" Isn't the default stance to let people do as they please, unless there is a good reason to stop them?

Well, if no one knows you've set it up in advance, a duel might be legal as-is. But really, an organized duel would have witnesses and take place in a semi-public setting, so maybe not.

Yes. But only if the weapon is a strap-on.

Practice in the locker room.

Well, if no one knows you've set it up in advance, a duel might be legal as-is. But really, an organized duel would have witnesses and take place in a semi-public setting, so maybe not.
I'm talking in general terms. Political debates are always framed as "legalise X". It's misleading.

"Legalising weed" doesn't mean that the state graciously grants us the right to smoke weed, it means that they'll stop shooting us if we do what we want. Legalising something is not a favour we should have to argue for. They should have to argue for their decision to shoot us.

I'm not sure I'd fancy a system where the better swordsman or marksman has higher legal rights.

Not necessarily the case - real duelling was quite different from sports fencing. Often the 'ignorant' would defeat the trained fencer simply because sports fencer are trained to react to certain types of attack and are not used to someone just flailing at them. Fear makes a huge amount of skill disappear straight out the window. Modern fencing is mainly about tapping by controlling the blade with the fingers - this simply would not work in a duelling scenario.

Still I am with banjos and pies as the only weapons that should be allowed.

Dueling already is legal, provided you don't kill the other guy and he doesn't press charges.

The problem with this consent thing is that many reluctant people would feel obliged to duel due to peer pressure. In times when dueling was common, those, who refused to accept a challenge were often considered cowards, which could easily lead to social ostracism. So, just because someone gives his consent, it doesn't mean that he's not forced into it.

Simple solution: the person who gets challenged may choose the weapons. Lethal or not - their choice.

Should we legalise murder? Hmm. No.

Not necessarily the case - real duelling was quite different from sports fencing. Often the 'ignorant' would defeat the trained fencer simply because sports fencer are trained to react to certain types of attack and are not used to someone just flailing at them.

interesting

What, is fencing not enough for you guys? You need to draw blood?

Sometimes you all creep me out a little.

I'll explain: dueling with real blades forces enemies to due smart things; not crap like this. http://www.fencingphotos.com/FencingPicts/040821_timacheff_AthensOlympicFencing_4686.jpg

Which I absolutely cannot stand...even if I win.

Another reason is that there is no way to flick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_%28fencing%29). I hate flicks.

Another reason is that you'll have a better method of scoring. Do have any idea how many fencers try to fool the electric? Plus you won't lose a point that was rightfully your in right-of-way weapons (foil and sabre).

And last-but-not least, it test nerves much more. It also forces the fencer to fight with skill, which most fencers are simply too-lazy to do. How many actual duellists continually target the foot?

Not necessarily the case - real duelling was quite different from sports fencing. Often the 'ignorant' would defeat the trained fencer simply because sports fencer are trained to react to certain types of attack and are not used to someone just flailing at them. Fear makes a huge amount of skill disappear straight out the window. Modern fencing is mainly about tapping by controlling the blade with the fingers - this simply would not work in a duelling scenario.

True. Example (source is Aldo Nadi's book On Fencing): Two men were fighting a saber duel. One had won fifteen such duels. A real violent type. The other had never been in a duel...he knew nothing about them.

The bellicose pro uttered a shout, brought-up his saber and charged at the "noobie". The noobie was scared out of his mind. He just froze and stuck his arm out. His attacker ran his throat right into the blade, impaling himself with a throat-thrust to the tip.

According to Nadi the winner "wrote a beautiful obituary".

Dueling should be legalized, heck, even encouraged as an alternative to drawn out civil trials.

I think the highest art of dueling, though, is the bare-knuckle duel. We could even start up schools of dueling for this noble and ancient art of fighting. Dueling and fighting schools instill bravery, a sense of camaraderie with warriors past, and would even combat the destructive body image types of all-too-thin people, as well as encouraging a more active lifestyle (by practicing).

I'm glad you guys don't make the rules. I like sports where you try to avoid injury.

Yes, yes, and no.

I see no good reason why consensual duelling should not be legal, however, I can't see myself taking part.

Nooooooooooooo! are you crazy i dont wanna die!!

as far as what dueling was meant for (settling arguments), it would not be a good idea to reinstate dueling. Being a better shot or better swordsman does not mean you are also right. :mp5: Might does not make right!
As big as this country is, I don't think they can "regulate" dueling. Especially not if they can't "regulate" illegal immigrants. :rolleyes:
Would I participate? I don't think I'd like having to fight for my life for no reason, having presented my case above. But fooling around sword fighting- no, more like sword playing- for half an hour might be fun. :D