Dueling? Murder so rare...
- Thread starter Titan6
- Start date
- Status
dave_pro2a
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 447
I think the proper term would be "mutual combat" with agreed upon terms.
Sure, why not. So long as reasonable steps are taken to avoid injury to bystanders.
Land of the free, and all that jazz.
Sure, why not. So long as reasonable steps are taken to avoid injury to bystanders.
Land of the free, and all that jazz.
oh, wow... dueling laws? hmmm.
so, by that law this is a murder. Otherwise, it would be a ...uh... man slaughter? The other guy had a gun and was shooting back, but it's obvious that you had the opportunity to flee because you went home and got your gun then returned. So, what exactly is this? Murder, manslaughter, felony murder?
"Judge, I wasn't intending to kill him... just scare him."
"ok, so second degree murder"
"he was shooting at me!"
"ok, so it's self defense. Could you have avoided the incident?"
"yes, I went home to get my pistol"
"ok, so it's murder again."
"but, he was shooting at me too!"
"Ok, so it's self defense. but, you said you went home and got your gun then came back?"
"yep"
"ok, so it's murder"
who's on third?
so, by that law this is a murder. Otherwise, it would be a ...uh... man slaughter? The other guy had a gun and was shooting back, but it's obvious that you had the opportunity to flee because you went home and got your gun then returned. So, what exactly is this? Murder, manslaughter, felony murder?
"Judge, I wasn't intending to kill him... just scare him."
"ok, so second degree murder"
"he was shooting at me!"
"ok, so it's self defense. Could you have avoided the incident?"
"yes, I went home to get my pistol"
"ok, so it's murder again."
"but, he was shooting at me too!"
"Ok, so it's self defense. but, you said you went home and got your gun then came back?"
"yep"
"ok, so it's murder"
who's on third?
walking arsenal
Member
Why is everyone assuming that we'd have to duel with guns?
Smithsonian magazine had a good article in it years ago http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/march/duel.php about dueling.
People dueled with everything from guns to swords to pitchforks and pig dung.
I think dueling in modern times would be great. Instead of "Who ever is richest and can hire the best lawyer wins" we'd have Duels that'd require the smuck to put somthing meaningful on the line.
If it was run proper by the courts i'd have no problem with it, folks would be a lot more polite.
Read the article.
Smithsonian magazine had a good article in it years ago http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/march/duel.php about dueling.
People dueled with everything from guns to swords to pitchforks and pig dung.
I think dueling in modern times would be great. Instead of "Who ever is richest and can hire the best lawyer wins" we'd have Duels that'd require the smuck to put somthing meaningful on the line.
If it was run proper by the courts i'd have no problem with it, folks would be a lot more polite.
Read the article.
If anyone is interested in a book that provides an entertaining, accurate and informative overview of the topic of dueling I highly recommend:
Dueling with the Sword and Pistol by Paul Kirchner, published by Paladin Press.
The author is a gun guy and was a student and friend of the late Col. Jeff Cooper. Most contemporary books on dueling are cut and paste jobs by ignorant hack writers. This book is an exception.
Dueling with the Sword and Pistol by Paul Kirchner, published by Paladin Press.
The author is a gun guy and was a student and friend of the late Col. Jeff Cooper. Most contemporary books on dueling are cut and paste jobs by ignorant hack writers. This book is an exception.
Since SUICIDE is ILLEGAL...
People obviously don't own their own bodies - the government does - else suicide wouldn't be illegal.
Since the government owns our earthly bodies it isn't in the government's best interest to allow us to waste ourselves in silly, anachronistic and beastly practices like dueling - no matter how practical it may be to allow them in certain cases.
Wouldn't want to allow people who mutually agree to do combat to the death to do so - why not only would that be wrong but it'd be a waste of a darn good tax payer in most cases. Can't have that now can we. Government's gotta eat afterall.
People obviously don't own their own bodies - the government does - else suicide wouldn't be illegal.
Since the government owns our earthly bodies it isn't in the government's best interest to allow us to waste ourselves in silly, anachronistic and beastly practices like dueling - no matter how practical it may be to allow them in certain cases.
Wouldn't want to allow people who mutually agree to do combat to the death to do so - why not only would that be wrong but it'd be a waste of a darn good tax payer in most cases. Can't have that now can we. Government's gotta eat afterall.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
But, but... Isn't that the root concept behind the oft-quoted phrase from Heinlein: " An armed society is a polite society"?
Google "code duello."
A very interesting highly ritualized procedure.
(Notice I said "root concept.")
Google "code duello."
A very interesting highly ritualized procedure.
(Notice I said "root concept.")
You guys thinking that dueling would be more honorable than the courts, and that it wouldn't be as biased towards the rich, need to think again.
If they legalized dueling, I'm about 99% sure that there would be a clause for the rich guy to have a stand in. And since they can hire talent...
"Okay, here's my stand in, Rob Leatham. Pistols at twenty paces. Have fun."
Well, if they came about, at least us gamers, 3gunners, and IPSC guys would get more respect.
If they legalized dueling, I'm about 99% sure that there would be a clause for the rich guy to have a stand in. And since they can hire talent...
"Okay, here's my stand in, Rob Leatham. Pistols at twenty paces. Have fun."
Well, if they came about, at least us gamers, 3gunners, and IPSC guys would get more respect.
CajunBass
Member
Lock 'em in a room.
Toss in one ax.
Whoever comes out, wins.
Toss in one ax.
Whoever comes out, wins.
Titan6
member
Rich guy stand-in for duels? Sounds a little like what we already have with war. Also sounds like steady employment for a talented enterprising person.
I am against dueling for 2 reasons
Who gets stuck cleaning up the mess, paying for the schooling cost of the kids, etc etc? Us taxpayers. Maybe if before you could duel you had to buy insurance and set up a trustfund for your kids...or just be single and have no progeny.
Second, lets say you do have a guy who ends up bieng quite good at dueling, does he now have carte blanche to cause trouble? Whenever there is socially acceptable dueling, frequently you get some guy who is quite good, but twisted inside who goes about causing trouble, or at least that is what my reading on the subject (fictional and non-fictional) leads me to believe. Along the same lines, we have cowards who commit suicide-by-cop, won't those guys just move to suicide-by-duel?
Now, an often forgotten rule in dueling was that such duels frequently didn't ever occur. People worked as gobetweens to come up with a amicable solution. On the occurance that duels did come about, they were often to 'first blood' 'three passes' or somethign similar. Pistol duels were never to the death (at least not in the planning stage...because unlike swords, how much powder and lead do you bring? is the winner the man who doesn't run out of ammo? they didn't want duels to be won by logisitics) Three bouts was the standard. What this meant was 3 times back to back, pace off, turn, aim, and shoot. After that, if both men were still living, they shook hands, and even if they both believed the other was absolutely wrong, they both aknowledged that the other was a standup courageous guy, to a degree that it overshadowed the dislike caused by the difference of opinion.
But most of the item, such pistol duels were kind of a game of chicken, and the ones that did one bout of back to back, pace off, turn, and then at that point both men had demonstrated that they had both honor, courage, and conviction, and could agree to disagree, and they would discharge the pistol into the air or into the ground
Here are a few snippest from the pbs special about the burr hamilton duel
JOANNE FREEMAN: Our image of the duel is that someone says a hasty word, and someone slaps someone else, and instantly they run off to the field of honor. But the fact of the matter is, that they were very deliberately provoked, and very often in this period, they were provoked after elections by either the person who lost the election, or one of his friends as a way of making up for the damage to their reputation in having lost.
JOANNE FREEMAN: You were not necessarily counting on the fact that you were actually gonna end up with a gun in your hand shooting at someone. You were counting on the fact that you were gonna have a chance to prove that you were willing to die to defend your character! So the code of honor really is being manipulated as a political tool among national politicians in this period, to a really extraordinary degree.
JOANNE FREEMAN: A duel was really a sort of game of dare or counter dare. It really was a case in which one man would step forward and say I'm willing to die to defend my name and the other man would have to step forward and say, I will meet you. And that, as a matter of fact, that was a phrase that they would use. Ritualistic phrase. I will meet you as a gentleman.
NARR: For Hamilton, the goal was to make a dramatic public statement in defense of his honor, not to shoot Monroe. In fact, once tempers cooled, the vast majority of affairs of honor were resolved before ever reaching the dueling ground. Such was the case with Hamilton and Monroe.
But while this duel of Hamilton’s turned out to be for show, there was another on the horizon, with a man far more determined to fight
NARR: With negotiations at an impasse, the code of honor required that Hamilton and Burr meet, as gentlemen, on the dueling ground. Failure by either man to appear would mean public humiliation and political death.
NARR: Once Hamilton and Burr had loaded pistols in hand, the rules mandated that they take up positions 20 feet apart. When the signal was given, they had three seconds to fire.
It was at this point that the two seconds gave completely different accounts of Hamilton’s actions. According to Judge Pendleton, Hamilton had made a fateful decision: that it would be morally wrong to shoot at Burr.
NARR: But according to Burr’s second, William Van Ness, Hamilton showed every sign of intending to shoot his rival.
NARR: Van Ness claimed that Hamilton shot at Burr but missed.
NARR: Whatever Hamilton’s actions, both seconds agreed that after Hamilton fired, Burr stood unhurt. Now, Hamilton’s fate was in Burr’s hands
(Hamilton' second)JUDGE PENDLETON
The fire of Burr took effect, and Hamilton almost instantly fell. Burr then advanced toward Hamilton with a manner and gesture that appeared to be expressive of regret, but without speaking turned about and withdrew. .
JOANNE FREEMAN: The few instances among these political duels when someone actually is killed, ended up being very bad for the for the person who's done the killing. Instead of appearing to be a noble man defending his honor, he instead appears to be bloodthirsty and somehow vicious. He’s crossed a line.
Who gets stuck cleaning up the mess, paying for the schooling cost of the kids, etc etc? Us taxpayers. Maybe if before you could duel you had to buy insurance and set up a trustfund for your kids...or just be single and have no progeny.
Second, lets say you do have a guy who ends up bieng quite good at dueling, does he now have carte blanche to cause trouble? Whenever there is socially acceptable dueling, frequently you get some guy who is quite good, but twisted inside who goes about causing trouble, or at least that is what my reading on the subject (fictional and non-fictional) leads me to believe. Along the same lines, we have cowards who commit suicide-by-cop, won't those guys just move to suicide-by-duel?
Now, an often forgotten rule in dueling was that such duels frequently didn't ever occur. People worked as gobetweens to come up with a amicable solution. On the occurance that duels did come about, they were often to 'first blood' 'three passes' or somethign similar. Pistol duels were never to the death (at least not in the planning stage...because unlike swords, how much powder and lead do you bring? is the winner the man who doesn't run out of ammo? they didn't want duels to be won by logisitics) Three bouts was the standard. What this meant was 3 times back to back, pace off, turn, aim, and shoot. After that, if both men were still living, they shook hands, and even if they both believed the other was absolutely wrong, they both aknowledged that the other was a standup courageous guy, to a degree that it overshadowed the dislike caused by the difference of opinion.
But most of the item, such pistol duels were kind of a game of chicken, and the ones that did one bout of back to back, pace off, turn, and then at that point both men had demonstrated that they had both honor, courage, and conviction, and could agree to disagree, and they would discharge the pistol into the air or into the ground
Here are a few snippest from the pbs special about the burr hamilton duel
JOANNE FREEMAN: Our image of the duel is that someone says a hasty word, and someone slaps someone else, and instantly they run off to the field of honor. But the fact of the matter is, that they were very deliberately provoked, and very often in this period, they were provoked after elections by either the person who lost the election, or one of his friends as a way of making up for the damage to their reputation in having lost.
JOANNE FREEMAN: You were not necessarily counting on the fact that you were actually gonna end up with a gun in your hand shooting at someone. You were counting on the fact that you were gonna have a chance to prove that you were willing to die to defend your character! So the code of honor really is being manipulated as a political tool among national politicians in this period, to a really extraordinary degree.
JOANNE FREEMAN: A duel was really a sort of game of dare or counter dare. It really was a case in which one man would step forward and say I'm willing to die to defend my name and the other man would have to step forward and say, I will meet you. And that, as a matter of fact, that was a phrase that they would use. Ritualistic phrase. I will meet you as a gentleman.
NARR: For Hamilton, the goal was to make a dramatic public statement in defense of his honor, not to shoot Monroe. In fact, once tempers cooled, the vast majority of affairs of honor were resolved before ever reaching the dueling ground. Such was the case with Hamilton and Monroe.
But while this duel of Hamilton’s turned out to be for show, there was another on the horizon, with a man far more determined to fight
NARR: With negotiations at an impasse, the code of honor required that Hamilton and Burr meet, as gentlemen, on the dueling ground. Failure by either man to appear would mean public humiliation and political death.
NARR: Once Hamilton and Burr had loaded pistols in hand, the rules mandated that they take up positions 20 feet apart. When the signal was given, they had three seconds to fire.
It was at this point that the two seconds gave completely different accounts of Hamilton’s actions. According to Judge Pendleton, Hamilton had made a fateful decision: that it would be morally wrong to shoot at Burr.
NARR: But according to Burr’s second, William Van Ness, Hamilton showed every sign of intending to shoot his rival.
NARR: Van Ness claimed that Hamilton shot at Burr but missed.
NARR: Whatever Hamilton’s actions, both seconds agreed that after Hamilton fired, Burr stood unhurt. Now, Hamilton’s fate was in Burr’s hands
(Hamilton' second)JUDGE PENDLETON
The fire of Burr took effect, and Hamilton almost instantly fell. Burr then advanced toward Hamilton with a manner and gesture that appeared to be expressive of regret, but without speaking turned about and withdrew. .
JOANNE FREEMAN: The few instances among these political duels when someone actually is killed, ended up being very bad for the for the person who's done the killing. Instead of appearing to be a noble man defending his honor, he instead appears to be bloodthirsty and somehow vicious. He’s crossed a line.
redneck2
Member
Two things to consider.
First, the plates aren't shooting back. Rob may or may not be as good with a truely "reactive" target. Probably is, but there's only one way to find out.
Two, if someone really hurt my kids or grandkids, I'd put my life on the line to kill the SOB. I may die in the process, but some things are worse than dying. We have guys in Iraq and Afghanistan that are proving that every day. We're all gonna die anyway. Might as well make it worthwhile.
Lucky
Member
BayouTeche77 said:
+1000
But people don't want to respect ALL people's choices, they only support 'diversity and freedoms' in so far as the other people's choices mimic their own. Guys consensually having bum-sex is 'diverse' in a 'good' way, guys consensually smoking drugs is 'experimenting with their bodies' in a good way. Guys consensually shooting at each other under strict rules that don't jeopardize bystanders - different and diverse, but not in a 'good' liberal way.
Rules I'd go by would be limiting the shots, enforcing FMJ and same caliber, minimum distances, etc.
It wouldn't even be that. Who is more likely to be a proficient duellist, a) the guy with nothing but time and cash, who can afford lessons, custom smithed and fitted weapons, and a few hours of practice a day, or b) Al, the bus driver? Sure, occasionally an Al would get lucky, or just be a natural shooter, but mostly it would be rich guys killing poor guys. And for the guys that didn't feel like doing that, their entourage includes Rob Leatham, and he's the one that smacks you with a glove and calls you Sally. The clause is built-in. Kinda like in medievil times; knights weren't knights just because they had the armor and horses, knights were knights because they had the money and land to support a stable full of war mounts, a smithy to make the armor, time to train and practice, and employed 15 other bruisers.
The other problem I have with dueling is the concept of you've got a beef so big you're willing to kill over it, but let's throw some nice frilly rules and ceremony on top of it? If I'm in a fight to the death, I'm in a fight to the death. If I miss, I'm not calmly waiting for your shot, I'm reloading and moving, and just as soon as I'm reloaded I'm gonna shoot some more. And I'm going to keep shooting until I'm out of bullets, then expect to be bitten or hit with a rock. Screw playing by some stupid rules, when your life is on the line.
Lupinus
Member
biker, a lot of female forms who would truely pain anyone watching that come to mind. Seriously would you want to watch Hitlery and Coulter naked in a vat of grape jelly?
Well, Lupinus, as I write this, I have a couple of country style boneless pork ribs on the BBQ along with a cob of corn smothered in butter and lemon pepper and wrapped in foil.
Thanks to you, my dog is going to eat well tonight.
Christ man, I thought we were kinda buds. Jesus...whydja have ta go and do that?
Biker
Thanks to you, my dog is going to eat well tonight.
Christ man, I thought we were kinda buds. Jesus...whydja have ta go and do that?
Biker
Lupinus
Member
Biker, what kind of bud would I be if I didn't point out potential serious life altering flaws in your plan?
Good article in Smithsonian about dueling
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/march/duel.php
Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, they all had to side-step challenges for a duel..
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2004/march/duel.php
Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, they all had to side-step challenges for a duel..
Titan6
member
I could have lived my whole life and never seen that. Now I may have to add it to my sig line.....
Lupinus
Member
It's nice to know you love me like that biker, but I already have a girlfriend, and shes into firearms so you don't even have that over her
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked