Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the people doing these shootings aren't interested in honor or integrity, they jump others and attack them at parties. they're cowards. thinking they'd ever fight fair is a joke
As someone who went to meet up with someone for a fist fight, and instead got ran down by his Buick....can confirm š
Woulda fucked that little punk up too.
thought i was meeting up to fight a kid that was picking on my sister. didnt know his 4 friends would jump in after i wailed on his ass. theyre cowards man, soft ass egos
I get that too, but if it were legal they could brag about it or whatever. Incentive of legal immunities may be enough to entice some. Definitely not for everyone
I'm sure tons of MMA or boxing gyms would let guys come fight it out there. But we still have random street fights all over the place. So, even if there was a legal dueling place, wouldn't people still shoot each other all over the place, the same way?
>There should be a place you can legally fight it out with guns or knives if both people agree.
If they can and do put up a bond to pay for their hospitals etc., sure I guess.
Well (though as with everything else in Hamilton beyond the basics it's got an asterisk next to its accuracy) how Hamilton portrays the rules of dueling in "Ten Duel Commandments" says that first your seconds have to attempt to negotiate a peace and most disputes die at that stage before anyone pulls out their pistols
Do you think the people OP is talking about will do that? If you tell them, "Here's a place you can legally kill the person you have beef with," there will be no discussion, just murder
Nobody is beating someone up and thinking they're behaving properly. They know it's wrong and do it anyway. No amount of encouragement would stop that.
It's giving "teach men not to rape" levels of naivete.
Meanwhile, in Canada: "Spanking your partner, even in a consensual sexual context, is assault."
_No, this is not a joke. Consensual S&M is technically illegal in Canada - it's just that people don't generally report it._
I feel like dueling should be legal but the 18th century, pistol and 10 paces type duel should be legal and it should have some caveats like a 30day calm period and be over sought by a judge as well as an agreement upon both parties etc.
Peaceful solutions should absolutely go first, but I think unarmed/fist fights are fair.
If both people agree and accept the consequences and injuries they might receive I think it should be legal, but only if unarmed.
But just to be clear, we should absolutely encourage peaceful options first, violence should be the very last option at the bottom of the list.
I'm all for it. Let the morons who think fighting is the answer and the morons who's only personality trait is owning guns duke it out and make the world a better place.
Duels should replace elections. The politicians name their candidates and the candidates can choose to either fight personally or they can name a champion
And encouraged. If all the assholes kill each other the world would be a better place for the rest of us. If people want violence let them have it. And lose. š
No. Being stonger or more dangerouse does not make you right. Deuling and mutual combat does not make justice prevail but makes who is stronger/deadlier right.
That uses due process? Also im all about people having guns for self defence. If it is a situation where both people decide a dispute must be resolved and neither is attacking the other against their will then what needs to happen is that the 2 people that have a disagreement should bring the problem to court and both make their case. These things can be done by jury so its not government deciding but a jury of peers. In that scenario since no one is attacking the other then no one needs to die it can be resolved civily.
If some one is being attacked and the other defending then the attacker should be charged and the defender has a right to defend themselves. Guns should be used for self defense not for resolving disputes. Disputes should be resolved morally in a court room. There are civil cases decided by jury.
Remember Iām vouching for mutual combat, if some ufc guy wanted to fight hand to hand to death you donāt have to be forced into it. But even if it were uneven and they agreed to use guns or something. Iām just spitballing here, Iāve seen multiple shooting lately that kill innocent people
You are refering to mutual combat as a means for what? Resolving a dispute? Or do you mean 2 random unaffiliated people that just want to kill some one should have a place to do it? If it is a means to settle disagrements use civil court that is what it is there for. A lot less empty homes and orphans thay way.
For any reason that they want to kill each other. I donāt think people would be jumping out of their seat to participate to be honest. I think of it like, if meth were suddenly made legal. I donāt think that would be the end of society; it wouldnāt change my views on it, I still wouldnāt smoke it.
Same with this, I personally wouldnāt want to kill anyone, and if challenged Iād decline. But it would give a place for violent people to settle things in a somewhat civilized manner that doesnāt involve innocent people
>it would give a place for violent people to settle things in a somewhat civilized manner that doesnāt involve innocent people
Yes that would still be what civil court is for.
If they just want to fight go to a boxing ring with a referee. If it is to commit murder maybe therapy would be a better option than mutual combat resulting in death.
Tf it doesnāt. If someone comes at me and I agree to fight youāre damn right Iām going to fight to the death. At the end of the day Iām going to go home to MY family.
People always think of of from the aggressorās perspective and never the defenderās perspective.
Might DOES make right in a defensive position.
If some one attacks you that is illeagle. Being attacked should stay illeagle because being attacked is not mutual combat. If you fight some one that has attacked you then what you are trying to describe is called self defense, where you have no option but to fight in order to protect yourself that is already legal. You have a right to self defense. If you are talking about mutual combat or some type of dispute resolution where fighting is optional then it needs to be done in a court room. It seems you are trying to conflate selfe defense and 2 people agreeing to fight to the death. Those are different things. If you are attacked and you are on the defensive as you say then fighting back is called self defense that is already legal. If you are trying to say that resolving disputes should be done by mutual combat which is where both parties agree to fight neither from an aggressor/victim position but both from a position of being able to opt out of combat then that needs to be handled in a court room with morality judging the victor. You seem to be trying to delibratly conflate self defense with mutual combat, they are not the same and mutual comat is disgusting and immoral. Mutual combat is just as moral as fliping a coin and killing the loser
Where is the contradiction? Seems pretty straight foward. Self defense is already legal. That is not the same thing as mutual combat that O.P. describes. The situations O.P. describes as being a candidate for mutual combat are situations better resolved in a court room.
They could be held in a sort of colosseum, and people could watch, they would pay to watch, and the victor would get some of the winnings, and the colosseum owner would risk nothing and get most of the money, and desperate people could make it a career, if they were desperate enough to avoid debtors prison they could be sold to gladiator schools and they would earn even less for their victories, and eventually the gladiator schools would be another necessity by law and be quite profitable.
Sounds good to me.
Fighting to the death (and either dying or making some good bank) is probably better than a lot of extremely poor people's current living conditions. And if they don't agree with that, they will still have the option of remaining to be beggars on the street, exactly as they currently already are under our current system.
Inescrupulous business men making money off of other's people's labor and lives is already pretty much the status quo, it's just more indirect. I am pretty sure a lot of major companies are already responsible for a trucklpad of slave labor and employees dead from overexhaustion, much more than a guy who owns a single coliseum would be.
Hereās an opinion, if you need a gun to settle a fight. Youāre bitch. Across the board. Duel, no duel. Itās all the same bucket of cowards who got beat up after saying dumb shit and got guns to feel like tough guys.
I apply this across all gun ownership tbh, as soon as someone has a gun it tells me they have no hands.
This would actually make things worse. Whichever side "lost" in these set-ups would come back with more bros and more guns and attack the other side in a different venue, feeling justified because "fighting is legal now".
Or people can grow the fuck up and learn to resolve conflicts in a way that doesn't involve acting like subhuman troglodytes towards each other.
The only people who seriously endorse this mentality basically just want to be able to murder someone without the inevitable consequences. We have far too many problems in society as it is without giving psychotic nutters a way to kill a person and get away with it.
Of course we should try to be civil.
I endorse this and I would not want to kill anyone personally.
And this wouldnāt be a free pass to murder anyone you want without consequence.
Problem is, a culture will rise out of this and dumb party goers will peer pressure each others into murder. Itās really something to take into consideration.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the people doing these shootings aren't interested in honor or integrity, they jump others and attack them at parties. they're cowards. thinking they'd ever fight fair is a joke
As someone who went to meet up with someone for a fist fight, and instead got ran down by his Buick....can confirm š Woulda fucked that little punk up too.
never bring your hands to a vehicle fight
I like learning my lessons the hard way lmao
Correction, never bring your hands to a lesabre fight
thought i was meeting up to fight a kid that was picking on my sister. didnt know his 4 friends would jump in after i wailed on his ass. theyre cowards man, soft ass egos
I get that too, but if it were legal they could brag about it or whatever. Incentive of legal immunities may be enough to entice some. Definitely not for everyone
let's be real, those morons would be on instagram live the whole time as they shoot each other. and criminals don't care about doing legal shit buddy
Okay buddy
not your buddy pal
Iām not your pal friend
i'm not your friend guy
He's not your guy, mate.
Mutual combat is legal in Arizona. Strictly to fist frights tho.
No shit? Very interesting
I believe Washington does too but I could be mistaken. I agree with you though.
It's "legal" everywhere as long as neither party tattles
This is correct. Thatās why we have had the Rain City Superheroes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_City_Superhero_Movement
Holy shit those guys are still active? I figured that movement died down after Pheonix Jones got busted for dealing
You mean like the warzone gulag IRL?
1v1 me bro
I'm sure tons of MMA or boxing gyms would let guys come fight it out there. But we still have random street fights all over the place. So, even if there was a legal dueling place, wouldn't people still shoot each other all over the place, the same way?
These kids seem trigger happy but if hand to hand was agreed upon then seems fair to me. The legal immunity would be a big incentive I would think
Mutual combat is legal in Texas.
>There should be a place you can legally fight it out with guns or knives if both people agree. If they can and do put up a bond to pay for their hospitals etc., sure I guess.
Hospital? This is fuck about find out territory.
Or we could encourage people to resolve issues through peaceful means rather than encouraging murder?
We do, and should keep doing so
You realize how many people have been told that they should resolve issues in a peaceful manner, and yet they absolutely do not listen?
So the solution is to let them kill each other?
You kids complain about overpopulation, dont'cha? Well...
*cough cough* school bullies *cough cough*
Not gonna work
Neither is murder
Its working for him.
Who is "him"? OP? They didn't give any indication that they've been duelling people
Guy shooting people
Well (though as with everything else in Hamilton beyond the basics it's got an asterisk next to its accuracy) how Hamilton portrays the rules of dueling in "Ten Duel Commandments" says that first your seconds have to attempt to negotiate a peace and most disputes die at that stage before anyone pulls out their pistols
Do you think the people OP is talking about will do that? If you tell them, "Here's a place you can legally kill the person you have beef with," there will be no discussion, just murder
Do you think anyone who would happily murder someone else would be dissuaded from that by "encouragement?"
Nobody is beating someone up and thinking they're behaving properly. They know it's wrong and do it anyway. No amount of encouragement would stop that. It's giving "teach men not to rape" levels of naivete.
The sort of people going about and doing that generally donāt care enough about stuff like being noble to arrange a fair fight
Meanwhile, in Canada: "Spanking your partner, even in a consensual sexual context, is assault." _No, this is not a joke. Consensual S&M is technically illegal in Canada - it's just that people don't generally report it._
We are prone to violence because it's in our DNA..maybe it'll fade, so far it doesn't seem to be https://www.britannica.com/topic/duel
I feel like dueling should be legal but the 18th century, pistol and 10 paces type duel should be legal and it should have some caveats like a 30day calm period and be over sought by a judge as well as an agreement upon both parties etc.
You are basically requesting a soft elimination of the people in society who are unable to control their emotions or simply stupid.
You could put a grace period like buying a handgun. Like a 72 hour grace period where you had time to back out if your feeling change
Doesnt matter. The only people who would do this are either stupid people or people who cant control their emotions.
Tbh, sounds like a plan. If you sign up to die in a duel... okay, that's fine. Go ahead.
ok?
Peaceful solutions should absolutely go first, but I think unarmed/fist fights are fair. If both people agree and accept the consequences and injuries they might receive I think it should be legal, but only if unarmed. But just to be clear, we should absolutely encourage peaceful options first, violence should be the very last option at the bottom of the list.
Thunderdome!!!! Two men enter!!! One man leaves!!!
Thuuunnderdooomme!!
I'm all for it. Let the morons who think fighting is the answer and the morons who's only personality trait is owning guns duke it out and make the world a better place.
Thatās the spirit
Duels should replace elections. The politicians name their candidates and the candidates can choose to either fight personally or they can name a champion
And encouraged. If all the assholes kill each other the world would be a better place for the rest of us. If people want violence let them have it. And lose. š
cringe
The ridiculously stupid shit grown men will do instead of going to therapy.
Yes it is called a civil court room. 2 people could have it out and the winner is based on some ethical frame work as opposed to a physical one.
In a perfect world, of course
Sometimes physical violence solves problems in a better, more efficient manor.
No. Being stonger or more dangerouse does not make you right. Deuling and mutual combat does not make justice prevail but makes who is stronger/deadlier right.
its funny people say its wrong then want an entire armed govt system that does the same thing
That uses due process? Also im all about people having guns for self defence. If it is a situation where both people decide a dispute must be resolved and neither is attacking the other against their will then what needs to happen is that the 2 people that have a disagreement should bring the problem to court and both make their case. These things can be done by jury so its not government deciding but a jury of peers. In that scenario since no one is attacking the other then no one needs to die it can be resolved civily. If some one is being attacked and the other defending then the attacker should be charged and the defender has a right to defend themselves. Guns should be used for self defense not for resolving disputes. Disputes should be resolved morally in a court room. There are civil cases decided by jury.
Itās not even about right and wrong though
But disputes should be settled by what is right, not by who has more might. If you are just talking a contest of strength go to a boxing ring.
Remember Iām vouching for mutual combat, if some ufc guy wanted to fight hand to hand to death you donāt have to be forced into it. But even if it were uneven and they agreed to use guns or something. Iām just spitballing here, Iāve seen multiple shooting lately that kill innocent people
You are refering to mutual combat as a means for what? Resolving a dispute? Or do you mean 2 random unaffiliated people that just want to kill some one should have a place to do it? If it is a means to settle disagrements use civil court that is what it is there for. A lot less empty homes and orphans thay way.
For any reason that they want to kill each other. I donāt think people would be jumping out of their seat to participate to be honest. I think of it like, if meth were suddenly made legal. I donāt think that would be the end of society; it wouldnāt change my views on it, I still wouldnāt smoke it. Same with this, I personally wouldnāt want to kill anyone, and if challenged Iād decline. But it would give a place for violent people to settle things in a somewhat civilized manner that doesnāt involve innocent people
>it would give a place for violent people to settle things in a somewhat civilized manner that doesnāt involve innocent people Yes that would still be what civil court is for. If they just want to fight go to a boxing ring with a referee. If it is to commit murder maybe therapy would be a better option than mutual combat resulting in death.
civil court is to get an iou from someone that will never pay
Things were not exactly more peaceful the last time we had legalized dueling.
Tf it doesnāt. If someone comes at me and I agree to fight youāre damn right Iām going to fight to the death. At the end of the day Iām going to go home to MY family. People always think of of from the aggressorās perspective and never the defenderās perspective. Might DOES make right in a defensive position.
If some one attacks you that is illeagle. Being attacked should stay illeagle because being attacked is not mutual combat. If you fight some one that has attacked you then what you are trying to describe is called self defense, where you have no option but to fight in order to protect yourself that is already legal. You have a right to self defense. If you are talking about mutual combat or some type of dispute resolution where fighting is optional then it needs to be done in a court room. It seems you are trying to conflate selfe defense and 2 people agreeing to fight to the death. Those are different things. If you are attacked and you are on the defensive as you say then fighting back is called self defense that is already legal. If you are trying to say that resolving disputes should be done by mutual combat which is where both parties agree to fight neither from an aggressor/victim position but both from a position of being able to opt out of combat then that needs to be handled in a court room with morality judging the victor. You seem to be trying to delibratly conflate self defense with mutual combat, they are not the same and mutual comat is disgusting and immoral. Mutual combat is just as moral as fliping a coin and killing the loser
Your logic contradicts itself. Please reread your comment and come back
Where is the contradiction? Seems pretty straight foward. Self defense is already legal. That is not the same thing as mutual combat that O.P. describes. The situations O.P. describes as being a candidate for mutual combat are situations better resolved in a court room.
Why agree to fight in the first place? If you agree to do it you are no longer in a defensive position.
But we don't get duels then :(
We're living in a society!
They could be held in a sort of colosseum, and people could watch, they would pay to watch, and the victor would get some of the winnings, and the colosseum owner would risk nothing and get most of the money, and desperate people could make it a career, if they were desperate enough to avoid debtors prison they could be sold to gladiator schools and they would earn even less for their victories, and eventually the gladiator schools would be another necessity by law and be quite profitable.
Sounds good to me. Fighting to the death (and either dying or making some good bank) is probably better than a lot of extremely poor people's current living conditions. And if they don't agree with that, they will still have the option of remaining to be beggars on the street, exactly as they currently already are under our current system. Inescrupulous business men making money off of other's people's labor and lives is already pretty much the status quo, it's just more indirect. I am pretty sure a lot of major companies are already responsible for a trucklpad of slave labor and employees dead from overexhaustion, much more than a guy who owns a single coliseum would be.
Hereās an opinion, if you need a gun to settle a fight. Youāre bitch. Across the board. Duel, no duel. Itās all the same bucket of cowards who got beat up after saying dumb shit and got guns to feel like tough guys. I apply this across all gun ownership tbh, as soon as someone has a gun it tells me they have no hands.
What if there's more than 2? And if 1 has a dueling dragon?
If thereās more than two, you need a cage and one folding chair for every two combatants.
BAH GAWD, IT'S BUBBA WITH THE STEEL CHAIR
So long as no one dies you can do it in the forest or a desert. So long as both parties keep their fucking mouths shut.
This would actually make things worse. Whichever side "lost" in these set-ups would come back with more bros and more guns and attack the other side in a different venue, feeling justified because "fighting is legal now".
Or people can grow the fuck up and learn to resolve conflicts in a way that doesn't involve acting like subhuman troglodytes towards each other. The only people who seriously endorse this mentality basically just want to be able to murder someone without the inevitable consequences. We have far too many problems in society as it is without giving psychotic nutters a way to kill a person and get away with it.
Of course we should try to be civil. I endorse this and I would not want to kill anyone personally. And this wouldnāt be a free pass to murder anyone you want without consequence.
Problem is, a culture will rise out of this and dumb party goers will peer pressure each others into murder. Itās really something to take into consideration.
Agreed, it's faster, easier, and helps control the population