The case for legalising duelling

Conservative Commentary ^ | 6 August 2002 | Peter Cuthbertson

[general_re]

I'd go for it as long as it's only limited to swords. Gun-dueling doesn't really prove much of anything.

Swords? You have insulted me, suh - I demand satisfaction. Pointy sticks at dawn, if you have any honor... :^)

Can we bring back bear-baiting while we're at it?

[gundog]

D'OH! Why did I have to slap a guy that says 'suh'? -Homer Simpson

[Junior]

We're talking about 2 people killing each other here. What could possibly be honorable about any of it? For that matter, if it's kill or be killed, why would cheating be bad?

You obviously do not understand the concept behind the code duello.

[dighton]

Raleigh at one period of his life appeared to be an inveterate duellist, and it was said of him that he had been engaged in more encounters of the kind than any man of note among his contemporaries. More than one fellow-creature he had deprived of life; but he lived long enough to be convinced of the sinfulness of his conduct, and made a solemn vow never to fight another duel. The following anecdote of his forbearance is well known, but it will bear repetition:

A dispute arose in a coffee-house between him and a young man on some trivial point, and the latter, losing his temper, impertinently spat in the face of the veteran. Sir Walter, instead of running him through the body, as many would have done, or challenging him to mortal combat, coolly took out his handkerchief, wiped his face, and said, “Young man, if I could as easily wipe from my conscience the stain of killing you, as I can this spittle from my face, you should not live another minute.” The young man immediately begged his pardon.

-- Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

[Tomalak]

LOL that episode did cross my mind. :)

[FreedomFarmer]

I'd go for it as long as it's only limited to swords...

I was on the fencing team in college...

Lettered in Four strand & Five strand Barbed; woven; snow; and specialized in 'lectric!

[Long Cut]

I'm not sure about that. Duelling pistols were some of the most elaborate and beautifully made weapons of their time. However, they were all single shot muzzleloaders, and few if any carried sights.

I'm sure a modern equivalent could be found, should the art of duelling once again emerge. The same would hold true for edged weapons (I, for one, would favor the Bowie knife). Ownership of a proper set of duelling weapons would once again be a sign of an honorable gentleman.

It should not be forgotten that honor was often served even if the duel resulted in no fatalities. Wounding an opponent was widely considered sufficient to demostrate one's honor, and quarter, if asked for, had to be given.

The concept is one which has some merit...it would surely lessen the number of lawsuits filed. Some questions to be answered remain, of course, to wit:

- Would a duel be allowed between a person and a spouse, in lieu of a divorce?
- Would duelling priveledges even be extended to the fairer sex at all?
- Would it be legal to call a lawyer, a politician, or a car salesman on the field of honor?(think about it!)
- And finally, would some duels be televised? Especially those between celebrities?

Think of it: two divorcing-in-hatred Hollywood stars, on the field of honor, on PAY-PER-VIEW!!!

A practice like legalized duelling would indeed be interesting in this day and age. I certainly wouldn't oppose it.

[Junior]

Code Duello

The Columbia Basin College Rules of Dueling

[stuartcr]

I am familiar with the 26 commandments, but I find the taking of a life, for something as stupid and trivial as an insult or supposed offence, distasteful and undignified.

[Khepera]

Cannons would be most entertaining.

[Junior]

I am familiar with the 26 commandments, but I find the taking of a life, for something as stupid and trivial as an insult or supposed offence, distasteful and undignified.

See, that is the beauty of it. Folks will not be as quick to offer an insult or to offend if it is possible one's life may be at stake. Additionally, a simple apology is all that is necessary to head off a duel -- there need not be any blood if one is willing to swallow a little crow. Life would get awfully civil and peaceful awfully quickly.

Note, the code duello is not the blood vendettas practiced by Rennaissance Italians or Rustic Appalachians; it is a highly structured system designed to allow the redress of grievances between two parties without the necessity of involving others.

One last thing: duelling need not be to the death. Indeed it is often only to "first blood" (which, in and of itself can be extremely painful).

[Lurker]

If dueling were legalized, this place wouldn't have half the number of members it does now...

(Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing.)

L

[stuartcr]

If you take offence at someones insults, or name-calling, or supposed affront, then you need to look at your life in more detail.

[Junior]

If you take offence at someones insults, or name-calling, or supposed affront, then you need to look at your life in more detail.

No matter how much we'd like to have otherwise, there will be men who will always take umbrage at an insult, just as there will always be men who will bully others as long as they can get away with it. Duelling simply provides a redress for such instances without involving innocent third parties or the government. Even when duelling was legal, very few duels were actually fought, as the threat of having to back up one's utterances or actions with one's life held most men in check.

[kms61]

I suspect that this piece is along the lines of A Modest Proposal, although I don't know for sure. That said, it's so full of holes I don't quite know where to begin.

For one thing, a return to duelling would, as it did in its heyday, lend itself to extreme bullying by those who were expert. Someone who clearly was less skilled than the bully would either have to take his bullying, or challenge him to what would probably be a suicidal duel.

[Chemist_Geek]

It should not be forgotten that honor was often served even if the duel resulted in no fatalities. Wounding an opponent was widely considered sufficient to demostrate one's honor, and quarter, if asked for, had to be given.

The winner was vindicated, the loser has proven his courage, both sides had a point made for them. It's the perfect solution!

[pros_n_cons]

I wholeheartedly agree. Dueling with swords took skill and cunning, dueling with pistols did not.

[pros_n_cons]

Then it would have been folly to either accept or request the duel on the part of the smaller man.

[Xenalyte]

I am ALL about the dueling.

[wardaddy]

Boy Howdy, you got that right. I can think of a few rather quickly.