I would rather an honourable life than an honourable death, something entirely within my reach without need of duelling There is no shame in losing to a superior opponent of course, but there's not much to be gained from it either. You risk creating a situation where someone who doesn't like you provokes you into combat and then kills you. At which point anything productive you may have done in the future will never happen. It is sadly a very effective way of deplatforming if you will.
While a decent person may risk their life for something noble, it is very easy for less scrupulous people to abuse that to put their opponents in a position where they must back down and be shamed, or stand up and die. Once dead they cannot argue their position anymore and it is discredited rather than being exalted.
The final word is what is remembered, and the winners will have it, for good or for ill.
But pistol duels are also very likely to result in death.Pistol duels are fairly equal all things considered. Especially if they are based on European procedure. Instead of gunslinging.
Given the accuracy of modern handguns-either older flintlock pistols would be used, or instead of say twenty paces make it fifty paces.
If both parties miss, they both get one more bullet each.
You could actually make it into quite a big industry, with betting and television. Especially the melee duels.
Though that would be decided by the duelists in question. If they wanted it televised or live-streamed.
Location, location, location. Heart and CNS hits have a high chance of being fatal. Others, especially with state of art medical care available, usually not.Most gunshot wounds are non-fatal, unless you are dealing with multiple gunshot wounds at pointblank range.
Accuracy tends to go to shit under pressure and chest shots are survivable, unless heart, artery or spine are hit. Or if you are using heavy caliber weapons for dueling.But this is out of cover, with people aiming for the chest. I expect that these could easily be fatal. And both people will be trying to kill to stop the other from shooting them.
You do realise that would create an entire new class of "Dueling Law" Lawyers, correct?Dueling is generally a really stupid idea, and honor culture is frankly an abomination against sanity (honor before reason is a saying for a reason).
That being said, I strongly believe that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies and the state should only become involved when it involves non consenting parties or the state is invited in; so if two people want to sign a contract and duel each other to the death then I think it should be 100% legal and allowed.
Duels disincentivize such behavior. Your not going to change their character or much reduce their numbers-but shit talking people on the internet and generally being an ass, now comes with a higher risk asterisk. If your Steven Crowder-you say yes, secure in the knowledge the Vox dude will likely chicken out and apologize, sure he might go and say "I didn't engage in toxic masculine expectations" or whatever-but outside of his bubble, that's going to be read as, "I'm a total pussy and I can throw shit but can't take it, I'm also a coward."Ok, so let's say I'm Steven Crowder, and I make fun of that lispy guy at Vox for being a pathologically dishonest soyboy idiot, which he is. He is upset by this and challenges me to a duel. What incentive should I have to actually show to that duel, instead of making fun of him for being a pathologically dishonest soyboy idiot that's also so thin skinned and emotionally disturbed that a fairly mild insult drives him into a murderous rage?
Like, I agree with your overall premise that the world is full of unpleasant people constantly saying and doing unpleasant things, secure in the knowledge they will face no consequences for thier actions, and that it would be great if there were fewer of that sort of person around, but I fail to see how this will actually address that issue.
But why should I say yes and maybe be able to make fun of him when he backs down but also maybe get shot, vs say no and always get to call him a thin skined psychopath and also definitely not get shot? One of those moves sounds way less risky.Duels disincentivize such behavior. Your not going to change their character or much reduce their numbers-but shit talking people on the internet and generally being an ass, now comes with a higher risk asterisk. If your Steven Crowder-you say yes, secure in the knowledge the Vox dude will likely chicken out and apologize, sure he might go and say "I didn't engage in toxic masculine expectations" or whatever-but outside of his bubble, that's going to be read as, "I'm a total pussy and I can throw shit but can't take it, I'm also a coward."