The Official JREF Lone Nut Challenge

TheRedWorm said:
2) You do not account for the invention of firearms.
Click to expand...

The rate of assassination was higher in the Roman Empire than it is today. Yet no lone nuts in the Roman Empire or Roman Republic for that matter. One thousand years of history and not a single lone nut.

Since the introduction of firearms the rate assassination has gone down.

FACE!

:D
 
Galileo said:
The rate of assassination was higher in the Roman Empire than it is today. Yet no lone nuts in the Roman Empire or Roman Republic for that matter.
Click to expand...

Back then assassination was a more regular feature of the political landscape, however. Saying that the rate of assassination was higher back then is comparing apples to oranges, because nowadays our ruling elites ambush each other in caucus meetings or plant misleading stories in the media around election time rather than murdering each other.

What would the assassination rate have been like in ancient Rome if the elites of ancient Rome didn't assassinate each other?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Back then assassination was a more regular feature of the political landscape, however. Saying that the rate of assassination was higher back then is comparing apples to oranges, because nowadays our ruling elites ambush each other in caucus meetings or plant misleading stories in the media around election time rather than murdering each other.

What would the assassination rate have been like in ancient Rome if the elites of ancient Rome didn't assassinate each other?
Click to expand...

People spread rumors in the Roman Empire, too. Back then fake pseudo-anonymous books were even published. You have come up with a lame excuse, but at least you are trying.
 
Galileo said:
People spread rumors in the Roman Empire, too. Back then fake pseudo-anonymous books were even published. You have come up with a lame excuse, but at least you are trying.
Click to expand...

What's the implicit argument here?

"Romans spread rumours, hence Romans did not assassinate each other"? That would be an incredibly stupid argument, because we know as a matter of historical fact that they did assassinate each other.

Yet I can't see what other argument you could possibly be making.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Pirouz Nihavandi

Can't argue the "loner". He was made a slave of the Arabs.
Can't argue the loon. He spent years convincing his Muslim captors that he'd converted, then joined their army and served for almost ten years, supposedly just to get close to the caliph and kill him (which he did).

He was Persian and considered it his religious obligation, as the Caliph was good buddies with a certain, um, Muhammad. I'd say the Caliph qualifies as a top political figure, and anyone who kills out of religious fervor is a whackjob, and the facts of his capture and enslavement make it highly unlikely that his eight year plan was the work of anyone else.

664 C.E. definitely qualifies on the time issue.





What do I win?
Click to expand...

Correction: He didn't "spent years.... then join the army"... his total time in captivity and army combined was only about eight years. I meant to correct that paragraph last night but forgot to.

I still win.
 
Galileo said:
The rate of assassination was higher in the Roman Empire than it is today. Yet no lone nuts in the Roman Empire or Roman Republic for that matter. One thousand years of history and not a single lone nut.

Since the introduction of firearms the rate assassination has gone down.

FACE!
Click to expand...


Not so fast. You're confounding the issues. First, you demanded that assassination attempts only count if the person was not a political insider. Then, when talking about the effect of guns on assassinations, you bring up the Roman Empire even though ALL of those assassinations were by political insiders. You're comparing assassinations with guns by outsiders to assassinations without guns by insiders.

Assassination rates may have gone down since Roman times. But assassination rates by political outsiders have gone up. And those rates have gone up coextensive with the availability of reliable, affordable, concealable firearms.

FACE!
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
What's the implicit argument here?

"Romans spread rumours, hence Romans did not assassinate each other"? That would be an incredibly stupid argument, because we know as a matter of historical fact that they did assassinate each other.

Yet I can't see what other argument you could possibly be making.
Click to expand...

Your argument is lame. You claim that because of our attack media, there's no need for lone nuts in the Roman Empire. The argument is incredibly lame. In reality, you have no rational explanation for the lack of lone nuts in the Roman Empire. You probably think Jack Ruby was a lone nut.
 
Loss Leader said:
Not so fast. You're confounding the issues. First, you demanded that assassination attempts only count if the person was not a political insider. Then, when talking about the effect of guns on assassinations, you bring up the Roman Empire even though ALL of those assassinations were by political insiders. You're comparing assassinations with guns by outsiders to assassinations without guns by insiders.

Assassination rates may have gone down since Roman times. But assassination rates by political outsiders have gone up. And those rates have gone up coextensive with the availability of reliable, affordable, concealable firearms.

FACE!
Click to expand...

Your analysis is faulty. Attacks by outsiders would just fail more often with a knife rather than a firearm. But the rate of failed lone nuts has also gone up since the Roman Empire.

DOUBLE FACE!!
 
Ladewig said:
which aren't very deadly, are they Galileo?
Click to expand...

I imagine he meant a sling, which is an ancient hunting weapon, and not a slingshot which doesn't appear to be all that old (though it too can be used for hunting small game).
 
Galileo said:
Your argument is lame. You claim that because of our attack media, there's no need for lone nuts in the Roman Empire. The argument is incredibly lame.
Click to expand...

That argument is indeed incredibly lame. However you made it up and attributed it to me, and it's not something I ever said.

The ruling elites in the modern First World have figured out much better ways of staying on top than assassinating each other all the time. Thus assassination in the modern world is mostly left to the lone nutters who are stupid enough to think it's a useful political strategy.

In reality, you have no rational explanation for the lack of lone nuts in the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...

Maybe there were a few around, but as a percentage of total assassinations I suspect they were completely swamped by the organised assassinations.

Further, as others have pointed out to you it's much easier to assassinate people now that reliable, automatically reloading firearms are commonly available to civilians. Outside of Agatha Christie novels a knife is not a magic wand that instantly kills people. Nor is a handgun, for that matter, but it's a hell of a lot closer. Your attempts to refute this fairly obvious point have been, to borrow a term , "lame". Actually I'd say they were "totally incapable of movement".
 
Galileo said:
Your analysis is faulty. Attacks by outsiders would just fail more often with a knife rather than a firearm. But the rate of failed lone nuts has also gone up since the Roman Empire.

DOUBLE FACE!!
Click to expand...


Are you drunk?
 
Great thread, in the Galileo tradition.

Person points out a lone nut within the date range, who would've been known to the original Galileo, and it's ignored (other than to prove that he doesn't know anything the original guy knew).

Two or three other posters knew of other cases, and they're ignored for a day at a time, and then elicit a "Hmmm, interesting case. But I'm still right there are no known loner-loon-political assasins prior to the date I mentioned, nyah nyah nyah nyah, so that means Siran Siran and Squeaky and David were all part of vast NWO conspiracies).

How about Gudrun? I mean she was his wife and all, but has anyone ever proposed that killing the Khan was a conspiracy? Oh, never mind... she was an insider.

Pausanias(sic)? Hmm... no, there are enough histories who attribute his acts to Alexander and/or his mum.

Who's that lady how drove tent pegs through the forehead of Eglon? Or was that Sisera? I get my OT crazy Jewish wives turned murderers all mixed up.

Murders happen, sometimes murders of well-known figures. Sometimes they're planned, sometimes they're for personal motives, sometimes they're for reasons of delusions. What's the point in trying to make them all fit into one category or putting the others into excluded categories? Just to prove something that you already believe? You're not swaying anyone with this, Galileo, so it's just a conspiradroid exercise in wish fulfillment.
 
Wow, what a deep, penetrating opening post.

You know, it's almost like technology has made it easier to kill a highly guarded target without need a gang of your own...

But as to the possibility of someone killing targets alone, who were John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and Jeffery Dahmer?

We know there are literally hundreds of serial killers (much less murderers of lower profile targets) that kill on their own. The difference between Lee Harvey and Son of Sam was the target. Both crazy people who wanted to kill by themselves. Lee Harvey even attempted a previous assassination before Kennedy. If he had escaped, who knows, he might have ended up being the first serial killer to target politicians.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom