a modest proposal ..... legalize, and bring back the duel ..... with pistols, or swords, or both .....

given the vitriol and nastiness of public debate these days, on all topics, i think that there is a lot of venom out there that is one pretty high boil.   it needs an outlet.

i would suggest the duel.

my proposal is simple.--    each of the states should establish a ground, a park if you will, with a view of the ocean or a magnificent river bend, or basalt cliffs, ... , well, you get to picture.   a place that a person can meditate on the course of his life, or the abbreviation of the same if he harbors a streak of realism.

that ground should have all the places necessary to provide shelter to the duelists and seconds, attending physicians, and a building for housing those who will officiate the duel.   it should also have a mortuary and attending undertakers, to administer those bodies of duelists who are killed.

the etiquette of dueling, with rapiers, edged weapons and pistols is long established, and i feel that they are a ready place to start for state legislatures in establishing governing statutory schemes for carrying on the duel.   there should be rules prescribed for how one initiates the challenge to the duel, and it should require notice to the authority which will govern it, local law enforcement to ensure that pre-duel contests do not take place, and to the person who is challenged to duel.

the person challenged should be given sufficient time to respond to a challenge, say 60 days, to prepare and practice ...  presumably a person issuing a challenge will probably be somewhat conversant in such matters.    in furtherance of an orderly process, if the challenge is accepted and a duel is to take place, the identity and securing of seconds should be arranged.   to maintain a semblance of honor and personal rectitude in the proceedings, professional duelists and professional killers, such as soldiers, police and hired guns should be prohibited from acting as seconds.

the person challenged should maintain the option of refusing or accepting the proffered duel, and it seems only fair that such person should also have the choice of weapons.   in that regard, to maintain an appearance of propriety in the matter, the weapons should be limited to relatively short barreled single shot pistols, swords or aluminum softball bats, if the contestants not have any skills in the use of weapons of gentle persons.   duels with pistols should not take place at distances exceeding 25 yards or so, to insure hits, and caliber/cartridge should be limited to .38 caliber and the .357 magnum cartridge.   sabers are ghastly things in the hands of amateurs, so the epee should be the considered choice for swords, though the roman short sword and shield sort of appeals to my sensibilities for some reason.   softball bats should be aluminum, and not to exceed 34 ounces in weight.   if a contestant is disabled during the duel, those officiating it should end it, and it should be a criminal offense if a duelist kills his opponent during or after an official suspending the duel while examining wounds, etc.   if a contestant "sour" on the duel he should have the option to terminate it, and again, it should be a criminal matter if a duelist kills his opponent after his opponent has called "quarter," or seeks to end the contest.

after all, the duel is to assuage honor, and to discourage disparaging public comment, not simply to kill someone.   murder satisfies that purpose equally well, and is far more efficient in terms of public involvement and the like.

i should think public dueling would probably cause nancy pelosi to be less caustic and disparaging.   that would be a very salutary result.  and, if fate & the justice of the duel should an end to her carryings on, or those of any like person, who can deny that the well being of the public would be amply served.

no less a worthy than abraham lincoln was challenged to a duel by a fellow militia officer while on some sort of putative mission to quell a disturbance with the local indians.    lincoln responded to the challenge by choosing the "weapons," sabers to be used by the combatants, while they advanced toward each other on planks secured to whiskey barrels.   much to the disappointment of almost all who would have witnessed such battle, the challenger thought better of the contest after lincoln made known his choice of weapons ....  no doubt turning such a serious matter in to farce quelled the challenger's zeal for a contest to the death.   that, and lincolns very very very long arms and general height.

without the institution of the duel there would have been no such stories, or like tales, issuing forth in our histories.   and, just because something is legal doesn't mean anyone is going to call it into being, without serious consideration as to his behavior, and its unpleasant result.   a lot of civility is calculated, after all.

john jay @ 10.07.2021

p.s.   better to have poseurs acting like dueling is repugnant, than to have poseurs acting like they are eager for terminal battle.   think about it.

 

Comments

[Hal P]

Yes bring back the Dual.

Too many people are way too comfortable, insulating, disparaging and threatening others from their keyboard with NO consuquens.

[Paul Albers]

Yes. Bring it back. Somehow there will be a need to be sure the good guy wins.
Then you must decide if the good guy is really the good guy.

[Sabre22]

I agree, bring back Dueling instead of clogging up the courts with BS lawsuits. Sword types allowed Sabres, Small swords or rapiers. Pistols allowed. Single shot black powder Smooth bore or rifled (modernize that rule) Typically rifled pistols were not used. But we can add them. The person being challenged chooses. Just to liven things up a bit. Also NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST ANYBODY WHO SURVIVES

[john jay]

sabre 22:
good suggestions.
john

[john jay]

paul:
the duel decides who was wrong, who was right, who was good and bad. if you won the duel, you were right, innocent of wrong doing, and just. the result of the duel settled all such questions. including "liability," civil or criminal.
john

[john jay]

hal p:
agreed.
john

[Grog]

Sounds practical to me, if your outline was ever adopted and implemented I can think of a few people that should be "encouraged" to participate. As you can.

chuckling

[jj]

😎