Gunfights and Duels?

[Baron Max]

Whatever happened to those honorable ways of settling personal differences and disagreements? Why has it become illegal, or immoral or unethical? While at the same time, fighting it out in court, losing large amounts of time, effort and money is acceptable?

If one has a grudge against someone else, why not settle it with a gunfight or a duel or any other type of honorable and agreeable method? And if someone challenges another to an honorable duel, then the other person must either back down and concede the argument, or accept the challenge of the duel ...maybe even suggesting a different type of duel. Perhaps instead of fastdraw-shoot to kill, he might suggest a longterm manhunt in the forest with long range rifles with telescopes. Perhaps a good knife fight, with long, sharp Bowie knives.

I think we should bring back that old and honorable personal duel. It would settle the differences quickly and permanently ...and wouldn't clog up the court systems with such frivilous lawsuits. As it is, a disagreement could fester and grow into something that's uncontrollable by society. A lawsuit, the judgement in court, does NOT settle the argument or disagreement, it only prolongs it. And worse, it leaves both contestants alive and able to continue the dispute.

Baron Max

 

[Oli]

So that "honour" will be the privilege of those faster on the draw?
Nice idea...

 

[Baron Max]

So that "honour" will be the privilege of those faster on the draw? Nice idea...

No, no! Personal duel ...of any kind, agreeable to both parties. It's a quick, simple way of settling personal differences instead of pay attorney fees, and spending time and effort in long, drawn out court trials.

But what do you have against it if the combatants agree? I mean, you don't have to agree, or even watch it. If you're not involved, nothing in your life changes.

Baron Max

 

[Oli]

Both agree? Not what you said...

If one has a grudge against someone else, why not settle it with a gunfight or a duel or any other type of honorable and agreeable method? And if someone challenges another to an honorable duel, then the other person must either back down and concede the argument, or accept the challenge of the duel ...maybe even suggesting a different type of duel. Perhaps instead of fastdraw-shoot to kill, he might suggest a longterm manhunt in the forest with long range rifles with telescopes. Perhaps a good knife fight, with long, sharp Bowie knives.

 

[Sock puppet path]

So you would be agreeable to a system which circumvents the legal process?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sounds like vigilantism.

 

[Baron Max]

So you would be agreeable to a system which circumvents the legal process?

Circumvents??? No, no! It's a simple challenge to a personal duel ...to settle the personal disagreements between two people. Ain't got shit to do with the legal process!

What the fuck are you people reading INTO this thing?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Sounds like vigilantism.

Two people who agree to a duel is ...vigilantism????? What are you smokin' this morning, Sam?

Baron Max

 

[kenworth]

i actually agree with cunty.if two people both consent to a duel i see nothing wrong with it.
same thing with euthenasia and that german cannibal.

 

[nietzschefan]

Still happens in some countries with varying degrees of "honour".

Frankly if you are taking about North America/Europe, most people value their life far to much to risk it over an argument.

 

[S.A.M.]

Two people who agree to a duel is ...vigilantism????? What are you smokin' this morning, Sam?

Baron Max

Its not my definition.

A vigilante is someone who takes the enforcement of law or moral code into his or her own hands.

 

[Oniw17]

Two consenting adults....

 

[Nickelodeon]

Agree to disagree.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Circumvents??? No, no! It's a simple challenge to a personal duel ...to settle the personal disagreements between two people. Ain't got shit to do with the legal process!

What the fuck are you people reading INTO this thing?

Baron Max

Well personal disagreements don't end up in court unless there is some legal matter involved

you mentioned

A lawsuit, the judgement in court

and

of pay attorney fees, and spending time and effort in long, drawn out court trials.

 

[Baron Max]

Well personal disagreements don't end up in court unless there is some legal matter involved

Agreed. But a good, agreeable, honorable duel would settle the differences or disagreements. In the USA, it's illegal to engage in a duel of honor! That sucks!

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Whatever happened to those honorable ways of settling personal differences and disagreements?

Governments eventually decided to ban them because silly men kept shooting each other over minor quarrels, often leaving behind families who then required somebody else to support them. Moreover, these duels removed men whom the state could otherwise use in its armies.

But before governments started banning duels, they were already falling out of favour. The main reason was that duels were traditionally the province of the upper classes only. Non-noblemen were not permitted to fight duels. It was a privilege originally reserved for the nobility only, and later the province of "gentlemen" only. As that system broke down and "common" people decided that they could fight duels, too, the nobility gave up on the whole silly idea.

 

[Nasor]

I think we should bring back that old and honorable personal duel. It would settle the differences quickly and permanently ...and wouldn't clog up the court systems with such frivilous lawsuits.

If consenting adults want to try to kill each other then I suppose it's okay, even if it's ridiculously retarded. But I don't see how this could help the court system at all. Most duels were fought over personal insults, not the sort of thing that you could file a lawsuit over. If you try to challenge your insurance company to a duel, I don't think any of the employees are going to take you up on it...unless of course they have a professional duelist on staff, who you probably really don't want to fight anyway.

 

[Baron Max]

Governments eventually decided to ban them because silly men kept shooting each other over minor quarrels, often leaving behind families who then required somebody else to support them.

But ye're all for legalizing drugs so the same family member can suck on drugs, get high and leave the same family to require someone else to support?? Hmm.

Moreover, these duels removed men whom the state could otherwise use in its armies.

I think we have enough members in society to fill the ranks of the army, don't you?

I can understand wimps and sissy-boys not wanting to duel or fight, that's easy. Wimps and sissy-boys always want others to protect them. But what of the manly-men, the strong, the mean, the nasty? Why can't we let them do it?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

If you try to challenge your insurance company to a duel, I don't think any of the employees are going to take you up on it....

No, not something like that, of course. But, say, a personal duel with the slimy sleaze-bag, lyin', egg-suckin' insurance agent that sold you the policy! No, see, that's personal ...the prick lied to you just to get his commission in sales. A meeting at high noon on Main Street would give personal satisfaction.

Baron Max

 

[nietzschefan]

Baron there must be a shooting here in toronto every other week at a "club" - havens of absolutely carnal and base human inpulses. Do the kids line each other up in the street 20 paces apart? No, one challenges the other to a fightfight and the other gets his gun from his car and blows his challenger's head off.

Honour was a commodity that ment something only to the old nobility and wannabes.