NationStates

According to Wikipedia:
A duel is an arranged engagement in combat between two individuals, with matched weapons, in accordance with agreed-upon rules. Duels in this form were chiefly practiced in early modern Europe with precedents in the medieval code of chivalry, and continued into the modern period (19th to early 20th centuries) especially among military officers.

During the 17th and 18th centuries (and earlier), duels were mostly fought with swords (the rapier, and later the smallsword), but beginning in the late 18th century in England, duels were more commonly fought using pistols. Fencing and pistol duels continued to co-exist throughout the 19th century.

The duel was based on a code of honor. Duels were fought not so much to kill the opponent as to gain "satisfaction", that is, to restore one's honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it, and as such the tradition of dueling was originally reserved for the male members of nobility; however, in the modern era it extended to those of the upper classes generally. On rare occasions, duels with pistols or swords were fought between women; these were sometimes known as petticoat duels.

[MEN]
One, two, three, four

[FULL COMPANY]
Five, six, seven, eight, nine…

[BURR/HAMILTON/LAURENS/LEE]
It’s the Ten Duel Commandments

[FULL COMPANY]
It’s the Ten Duel Commandments
Number one!

[LAURENS]
The challenge: demand satisfaction
If they apologize, no need for further action

[COMPANY]
Number two!

[LAURENS]
If they don’t, grab a friend, that’s your second

[HAMILTON]
Your lieutenant when there’s reckoning to be reckoned

[COMPANY]
Number three!

[LEE]
Have your seconds meet face to face

[BURR]
Negotiate a peace…

[HAMILTON]
Or negotiate a time and place

[BURR]
This is commonplace, ‘specially ‘tween recruits

[COMPANY]
Most disputes die, and no one shoots
Number four!

[LAURENS]
If they don’t reach a peace, that’s alright
Time to get some pistols and a doctor on site

[HAMILTON]
You pay him in advance, you treat him with civility

[BURR]
You have him turn around so he can have deniability

[COMPANY]
Five!

[LEE]
Duel before the sun is in the sky

[COMPANY]
Pick a place to die where it’s high and dry
Number six!

[HAMILTON]
Leave a note for your next of kin
Tell ‘em where you been. Pray that hell or heaven lets you in

[COMPANY]
Seven!

[LEE]
Confess your sins. Ready for the moment
Of adrenaline when you finally face your opponent

[COMPANY]
Number eight!

[LAURENS/LEE/HAMILTON/BURR]
Your last chance to negotiate
Send in your seconds, see if they can set the record straight…

[some hamburr chat about maybe it's a bad idea?(well it's true since many people misunderstand the point of duelling)]

[COMPANY]
Number nine!

[HAMILTON]
Look ‘em in the eye, aim no higher
Summon all the courage you require
Then count

[MEN]
One two three four

[FULL COMPANY]
Five six seven eight nine

[HAMILTON/BURR]
Number

[COMPANY]
Ten paces!

[HAMILTON/BURR]
Fire!

credits: Genius lyrics

Bombadil wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDsn-RRmDXU

Jefferson-Madison wrote:

Bombadil wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDsn-RRmDXU

What's the vid about? I'm wary of opening random youtube links, quite frankly.

Bombadil wrote:

Jefferson-Madison wrote:What's the vid about? I'm wary of opening random youtube links, quite frankly.

You besmirch my good honour sir, a duel at dawn it shall be.. what is your weapon of choice?

Jefferson-Madison wrote:I believe that the outlawing of duels caused a spike in cold-booded murder in the last centuries.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I would like to use a Jaime Lannister Valyrian steel blade to fight for real.

AiliailiA wrote:

Jefferson-Madison wrote:I believe that the outlawing of duels caused a spike in cold-booded murder in the last centuries.

Why do you believe that?

Also, what's your definition of "cold-blooded murder", if that's not just "murder"?

Bombadil wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:I would like to use a Jaime Lannister Valyrian steel blade to fight for real.

A fine choice sir, I'll be using an MP7A1 myself, see you at dawn.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
A fine choice sir, I'll be using an MP7A1 myself, see you at dawn.

I have no quarrel with you so I wouldn't want to duel you. I only duel people who have insulted my honour (aka were total ***** to me).

Also, I would assume that the legislation enabling the duels would say something about using fair weapon match ups.

I believe that the outlawing of duels caused a spike in cold-booded murder in the last centuries. To have a decline in cold-blooded murder, we will need to legalize duelling, as it's less brutal and killing is not even really the whole point of it.

Jefferson-Madison wrote:

AiliailiA wrote:
Why do you believe that?

Also, what's your definition of "cold-blooded murder", if that's not just "murder"?

There's no more formal way to settle disagreements for people who have a rather physical instinct, whom cannot easily be swayed by dialogue.

CBMs are just the regular random murders/massacres that happen every day.

AiliailiA wrote:

Jefferson-Madison wrote:There's no more formal way to settle disagreements for people who have a rather physical instinct, whom cannot easily be swayed by dialogue.

I was thinking more facts and figures, proof, evidence of some kind. The "spike in ... murder in the last centuries" if it exists, some numbers on that. The numbers of people killed in duels before, the number of non-lethal resolutions of duels. Perhaps some like-with-like comparisons from a time and place where duelling still took place, tracing the outcomes of similar disputes with and without a duel.

CBMs are just the regular random murders/massacres that happen every day.

Saying "cold-blooded" is just rhetorical flourish then. OK.

The homicide rate in the US has fallen dramatically over the past few centuries. The following graph shows the fall in the homicide rate in relation to various armed conflicts in New England. In the early colonial days in America, the homicide rate was incredibly high. But as the colonies became more established and orderly, the rate fell, except for the time during the American Revolution when the colonies were understandably amidst upheaval. It’s important to note that one cannot directly derive from this graph a causal relationship between these conflicts and the homicide rate.

By the time of the Broderick-Terry duel of 1859, slavery had become the new reason for dueling. Dueling had lost favor in the early 1800s in the North, but still remained the dispute-solving method of choice in the South, where social standing was a touchier subject.

Although 18 states had outlawed dueling by 1859, it was still often practiced in the South and the West. Dueling became less common in the years following the Civil War, with the collective public opinion perhaps soured by the amount of bloodshed during the conflict.

By the start of the 20th century, dueling laws were enforced and it became a thing of the past

Bakery Hill wrote:Duelling was a practice, in America at least, undertaken by aristocratic slaveholders and/or sellers like your good friend Alexander Hamilton. It was never common amongst the lower orders who, as a rule, are far more sensible.

Jefferson-Madison wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
I have no quarrel with you so I wouldn't want to duel you. I only duel people who have insulted my honour (aka were total ***** to me).

Also, I would assume that the legislation enabling the duels would say something about using fair weapon match ups.

That should definitely be included, so there will be a fair fight.

Neanderthaland wrote:

I believe that the outlawing of duels caused a spike in cold-booded murder in the last centuries. To have a decline in cold-blooded murder, we will need to legalize duelling, as it's less brutal and killing is not even really the whole point of it.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Bakery Hill wrote:

AiliailiA wrote:
I was thinking more facts and figures, proof, evidence of some kind. The "spike in ... murder in the last centuries" if it exists, some numbers on that. The numbers of people killed in duels before, the number of non-lethal resolutions of duels. Perhaps some like-with-like comparisons from a time and place where duelling still took place, tracing the outcomes of similar disputes with and without a duel.



Saying "cold-blooded" is just rhetorical flourish then. OK.

This could be a good start.

The homicide rate in the US has fallen dramatically over the past few centuries. The following graph shows the fall in the homicide rate in relation to various armed conflicts in New England. In the early colonial days in America, the homicide rate was incredibly high. But as the colonies became more established and orderly, the rate fell, except for the time during the American Revolution when the colonies were understandably amidst upheaval. It’s important to note that one cannot directly derive from this graph a causal relationship between these conflicts and the homicide rate.

https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/#usa

By the time of the Broderick-Terry duel of 1859, slavery had become the new reason for dueling. Dueling had lost favor in the early 1800s in the North, but still remained the dispute-solving method of choice in the South, where social standing was a touchier subject.

Although 18 states had outlawed dueling by 1859, it was still often practiced in the South and the West. Dueling became less common in the years following the Civil War, with the collective public opinion perhaps soured by the amount of bloodshed during the conflict.

By the start of the 20th century, dueling laws were enforced and it became a thing of the past

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectiv ... n-america/
And so we see no correlation between rising crime rates and duelling. In fact it seems the opposite is true.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:In terms of the illegalization of dueling, I don't think it's so much the principle of the matter that gets it outlawed, so much as how it would be pretty difficult to prevent people from abusing it. For one, you'd have to like send out the sheriff to oversee the duel to make sure there's no underhanded tricks, which ties down law enforcement resources.

Jefferson-Madison wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:In terms of the illegalization of dueling, I don't think it's so much the principle of the matter that gets it outlawed, so much as how it would be pretty difficult to prevent people from abusing it. For one, you'd have to like send out the sheriff to oversee the duel to make sure there's no underhanded tricks, which ties down law enforcement resources.

That would be the job for the seconds, they are the ones who keep the whole thing systematic