and a great way to keep the gene pool healthy.


Should dueling--with a very clearly defined set of rules to avoid random public duels--be legalized?

Should dueling--with a very clearly defined set of rules to avoid random public duels--be legailized?

No. Applying a set of rules to needless violence does nothing to change the fact that someone gets killed, and it is likely that no justice will be served, just that the better fighter wins.

Should dueling--with a very clearly defined set of rules to avoid random public duels--be legailized?

My modest proposal: it should be a coin toss (or some other random binary generator); whoever loses the toss dies. That would be the most "fair". Also, champions would not be allowed as someone could just hire those champions to go around challenging folks.

Should dueling--with a very clearly defined set of rules to avoid random public duels--be legalized?


OK this topic begs the obvious question, did someone mess in your cherios recently Chris (I sure hope it is not me)?


I don't think it is a bad Idea. I also do not oppose champions. For example, how would a person confined to a wheelchair seek retribution, if a violent contest is desired by both parties? However, it should not be legal to pay a champion. If you need one, turn to your friends and family.

Should it be some other form of contest rather then violence? How about letting the duelist choose the contest? They could agree on fists, chess, foils, cabinet making, knives, napkin folding, quarterstaffs, etc. Whatever they agree on. I do not think firearms, other then in the form of target shooting contest, should be allowed.

Also, it should not be allowed to be to the death. There is simply not a reason for this in my mind. If you are seeking justice, either by allowing a contest to determine the outcome of a legal dispute, or just seeking to save face, first blood is all that should really be necessary.

What do we do if someone dies? Treat it like a possible crime, and investigate. Allow the authorities as well as a panel of experts on the particular type of contest, investigate to determine if it was accidental or if there was intent. You can fence someone and intentionally kill them, but can also fence someone and, have that person accidentally die (because they mistakenly stepped into you attack, or something similar).

A violent contest should include a waiver of all rights to sue for injuries and should be considered a violent risk that the participants are willingly partaking it with a full understanding that accidental maiming or death could result. If an inquiry determines that a death or maiming was not intentional, then there should be no ability to take legal action taken against the victor.

I really don't see a problem with dueling. In a Duel, people are willing participants, who voluntarily choose to involve themselves.

It wasn't too many months ago that Zell Miller said he wished he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel. From Zell's point of view, dueling might be, as Martha Stewart would put it, "a good thing."

I'm not sure how Matthews would take to the proposition.

No, and for the same reason that it was made illegal in the first place. Grievances between two individuals should be settled through the courts system.

If this isn't practical because the courts systems is not perfect, change the courts system.

And if the greivances that you might imagine would be settled by duelling aren't serious enough to be dealt with according to the law - maybe "looking at mah wife kinda funny" - then the participants in the dispute should behave like adults and let it pass.

Formalising stupidity by formalising duelling doesn't make it any less stupid, and in my view the law has no business encouraging stupidity.