Dueling Anyone?

R

Roybean

New member
Dueling anyone? I recently heard someone in court suggest we bring back dueling. "We were," he said, "a much more respectful and gentlemanly society when dueling was around. Any thoughts.

Of course today, the duel has been replace by the hired guns of the law, i.e., the attorneys.
 
Crimeny... I'm trying to remember where I saw a writeup on the history of dueling... may well have been here... don't recall.

Anyhoo, from what I remember, it has been illegal in most countries for a LONG time... even in the old days one of the jobs of the "second" was to help manage the legal issues... claim self defense... claim the other guy committed suicide... help the winner escape the jurisdiction he just murdered a man in. Ever seen/read Barry Lyndon?


I'd just rather see a return to the day when Gentlemen openly carried arms.
 
Well, if we could get the attorneys to duel each other on behalf of their clients...! :D

"Looks like you win, Joe, but my attorney was supposed to be better than yours!"

Sort of like medieval jousting....
 
Blackhawk-You've touched on my long time solution to the legal mess we're in. Attorneys should recieve the same as their clients. Client gets off , attorney gets off. Client gets the needle, attorney gets the neddle. Client gets $10, attorney gets $10. Client gets $1,000,000, attorney gets $1,000,000.

Sure would thin them out.:D

Re: Duels
I'd pay to watch Barr vs. Schumer (Boxer, Feinstein, etc.)
 
They sell pump action paintball pistols. These make for great dueeling pistols. It's surprisingly nerve-wracking, knowing that you only have one shot.

Haven't tried it for a few years.. I should dig up mine and challenge a few friends.
 
How do you know the duel is going to involve guns?

Are you as sure of yourself when facing a meter of cold steel?

Warmest Regards, Smoker
 
Although I don't particularly like the idea of blood duels*, a society that upholds the idea of self-ownership cannot rationally restrict two consenting adults from fighting one.

(*It's possible to make almost anything into a challenge provided both parties agree. Lawn darts? Motorcycle racing? Iron Chef?)

- Chris
 
Prior to advent of archery, cross-bows, firearms, etc. the stronger and swifter generally prevailed. The advent of these weapons and todays modern firearms with scopes, etc. the tide has swung to the skillful. As was engraved on the 1973 Winchester Rifle, "Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size, when danger threatens, call on me and I will equalize," or "God created man but Sam Colt made them equal." Thus skill and technology has over come brute strength.
 
Duels don't have to be lethal: I built a pair of BP dueling pistols chambered for paintballs, and the folks who have them are enjoying the dickens out of them.
 
Dueling is fine with me. For the same reasons that ChrisII stated. I practice using various arms from my own all the way up to the high powered rifle. I'd feel comfortable with a big stick, knife, sword, rifle, etc. Not to say that I'm an expert with all, but I am familiar with most weaponry that could be reasonably used in a duel.


Billll- Out of curiousity, how did you do that?
 
Beautiful idea. In the homeland of duels, Europe, only aristocrats and academics were "satisfaction-worth". So, our "elected" aristocracy and our socialist multimillionaire celebrities should be allowed to duel.

(The drawback is, an aristocrat, thinking being offended by a peon, could just kill him/her without any consequences. As this peons were their property, they mostly were ok with some of his court servants beating the peon half to death. Something familiar???)

I hear voices in my head: "Mr. Clinton, choose the weapons! Thank you Mr. Bush, I'll choose sabers, 15 steps, throwing prohibited!
 
I was really impressed when I read about Jim Bowie of Alamo fame. He got his name by dueling with his famous knife, I believe chained to his opponent. One of the duels I believe was in a darkened house! :eek: It's been a lot of years since I read about Marse Jim. :D
 
Bowie was caught up in some sort of quarrel with a duelist who had a deadly reputation. The duelist challenged Bowie so Bowie got to pick the terms of the duel. The conditions were that they meet in a completely dark warehouse with their feet only in stockings. Each man could chose any weapon he so wished. Since Bowie didn't really know how to duel with a rapier or dueling pistol, he set up terms that agreed with his style. Of course, Bowie came out on top.

Another time Bowie and his opponent were nailed to a log (by their pants). They were so close as their knees were touching. Bowie won again.

Yet another time Bowie was serving as a second during the Maddox-Wells duel. Neither of the principles could shed blood so the seconds started fighting. Bowie was shot twice and then the other second, Wright, stabbed him through the chest with a sword cane. The sword cane was stuck through Bowie's chest when he pulled Wright closer...right onto his famous knife.
 
If we had it semi-formalized in arenas, we could have concession stands, betting, etc. There would be play by play announcers and we could see multi-angle reruns on ESPN.
Duels could be to first blood, until one side gives in, or to the death. For those to first blood or surrender, prison penalties would have to apply for killing.
But what is this pistols at 10 paces stuff? Most of us here are Americans! It should be calling each other out: "(Insert name here), you low down, yellow bellied politician kisser, there isn't enough room in this town for the both of us." Next noon, both sides would be at opposite ends of a street, stopping at a mutually acceptable distance. When the clock strikes noon, both sides draw.
 
Who'd teach the left...

While reviving the duel is an excellent idea, who would teach most of the left-wingers how to shoot? After all, they ought to have a little bit of a chance, at least.
As for Burr-Hamilton, that was an attempted murder that went wrong for the planner. The pistols, which belonged to Hamilton's brother in law James Church, had been secretly modified to give Hamilton an advantage. They had 'blind' rifling--the outer 3 inches of the barrels were smoothbore but the rest had rifling--and a concealed set trigger. Since they were Hamilton's brother in law's pistols, Hamilton would have known that, Burr wouldn't.
Hamilton fired first and the ball went over Burr's head, but not by much. Burr then fired, hitting Hamilton in the thigh, which shouldn't have been a fatal wound and probably wouldn't have been, had the pistol been smoothbore. The rifling gave that ball considerably more velocity, even with a light charge--dueling pistols were usually charged with 10 to 15 grains--which probably put a small hole in his femoral artery, causing him to bleed to death over a 24 hour period.
One very important point--if you're trying to kill somebody, you don't shoot him in the leg! Unless Burr was a really lousy pistol shot, he was trying to wound Hamilton, as he had previously wounded his brother in law with the same pistols.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top