The Official JREF Lone Nut Challenge

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...
how many failed attempts are documented? how many failed attempts are even found out?

i wonder how many presidential assassinations have been foiled when the would-be assassin lost his nerve when the secret service stopped him and said "sir you cant be in this area, please turn around and go back the way you came" without anyone ever knowing the guy planned to kill the president

the same would apply in ancient times, the would-be assassin simply cant get close enough to the political figure to stab him, and in the end no one even knows he tried. this, of course, becomes much less of a problem with the advent of cheap and reliable firearms

ETA: triple face?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
how many failed attempts are documented? how many failed attempts are even found out?

i wonder how many presidential assassinations have been foiled when the would-be assassin lost his nerve when the secret service stopped him and said "sir you cant be in this area, please turn around and go back the way you came" without anyone ever knowing the guy planned to kill the president

the same would apply in ancient times, the would-be assassin simply cant get close enough to the political figure to stab him, and in the end no one even knows he tried. this, of course, becomes much less of a problem with the advent of cheap and reliable firearms

ETA: triple face?
Click to expand...

Quadruple face. Most assassination attempts against important policial leaders are documented.

In modern times, mnay of the lone nuts were clsoe enough to act with a knife;

Sihan Sirhan for example.

Also, the cases of John Lennon, McKinley, Garfield, Huey Long, Andrew Jackson, Spencer Perceval, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. In all these cases the assassin could have tried with a knife.

So the gun argument is out.

Ha!

:crowded:
 
GrouchoMarxist said:
"
Wouldn't that make White an insider?
Click to expand...

I guess this could be left down to interperatation. He wasn't an employee of City Hall at the time of the assasinations,and I dont think his knowledge of the building was a contributing factor to the murder. Personally,I beleive he would have killed Milk wherever he could.

Galileo said:
Who are these people? This could be a good one.
Click to expand...

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay politician,and Dan White was a fellow city supervisor.
 
joe911 said:
I guess this could be left down to interperatation. He wasn't an employee of City Hall at the time of the assasinations,and I dont think his knowledge of the building was a contributing factor to the murder. Personally,I beleive he would have killed Milk wherever he could.



Harvey Milk was the first openly gay politician,and Dan White was a fellow city supervisor.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they were friends at first, so what happened? Do you think White's motive was political - or something else? I'm pretty sure the twinkie thing was bs.
 
UPDATE:

I am open to any discussion of lone nuts prior to either 1812 or 1882.

Please, if you know any lone nuts during this time, please let is know.
 
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...

There is this.
 
GrouchoMarxist said:
Yes, and they were friends at first, so what happened? Do you think White's motive was political - or something else? I'm pretty sure the twinkie thing was bs.
Click to expand...

I think the motive for killing each person he did [and those he intended to] were different. I think his motive for killing Harvey was partly because of his sexuality,and the massive influence Harvey had over the board of supervisors,and over people in general. Harvey opposed Dan's reappointment,and I think Mayor Moscone sided with Harvey because he knew that Harveys influence could affect his own place in the political landscape.

As for the twinkie defence,I can accept that he was depressed,however I dont buy into the twinkie crap. He took a gun into city hall and had every intention of murdering Harvey and others,it was no way a spare of the moment thing.
 
joe911 said:
I think the motive for killing each person he did [and those he intended to] were different. I think his motive for killing Harvey was partly because of his sexuality,and the massive influence Harvey had over the board of supervisors,and over people in general. Harvey opposed Dan's reappointment,and I think Mayor Moscone sided with Harvey because he knew that Harveys influence could affect his own place in the political landscape.

As for the twinkie defence,I can accept that he was depressed,however I dont buy into the twinkie crap. He took a gun into city hall and had every intention of murdering Harvey and others,it was no way a spare of the moment thing.
Click to expand...

His defenders suggested that as a former police officer he would be in the habit of carrying not only a gun, but spare ammo as well. I think they are the same ones who said it was common to enter city hall through a window(to save time).

I can't back it up, but I think there may be more to this case than meets the eye. Why would the guy throw his whole life away over a city supervisor job?
 
GrouchoMarxist said:
His defenders suggested that as a former police officer he would be in the habit of carrying not only a gun, but spare ammo as well. I think they are the same ones who said it was common to enter city hall through a window(to save time).
Click to expand...

The homicide inspector claims he confessed to him that it was premeditated. It could also be argued that he used the window to avoid the newly installed metal detectors.

GrouchoMarxist said:
I can't back it up, but I think there may be more to this case than meets the eye. Why would the guy throw his whole life away over a city supervisor job?
Click to expand...

I think its because he felt like he had lost everything. Harvey knew from very early on in their friendship that Dan didn't have much going for him. He was also apparently depressed,and with family troubles and loosing his job and being kept from getting it back by someone he hated probably was the turning point in what happened.
 
Galileo said:
You point, if taken to its logical extent, is pointless. Security might stop a man with a gun or a knife.
Click to expand...
missed again, my point was with a knife its likely a lot easier for the would-be assassin to give up before anyone even knows he was planning to kill anyone. with guns the assassination can be attempted from a much greater distance, so the would-be killer is less likely to give up
 
Galileo said:
You are a conspiracy theorist. I am a skeptic.
Click to expand...

Project much?

Incidentally I did try to find an example, but googling for example "lone nut assassination" gets many different threads on various forums all with OPs started by you. I think the post by one DarrinS on the SpursTalk forum sums it up the best:

DarrinS said:
Ironically, lone nuts tend to be paranoid, delusional, and believe in conspiracies.
Click to expand...


I do, however, understand why you're forever mentioning assassinations before 1800 when this thread is asking for assassinations before 1750, because you're juggling many threads on many different forums.

For those that are interested, someone mentioned on the Official Lone Nut Thread on the Ron Paul forums that Robert-François Damiens could be considered a "lone nut". Even then he looked like was going to discount it because the Damiens was tortured to find out if there were any accomplices.

Quickly looking I have a few names:

Pierre Barrière (1593) and Jean Châtel (1594) both tried to murder Henry IV of France, who was of course assassinated in 1610 by François Ravaillac.

Gao Jianli who tried to assassinate Qin Shi Huang during the Warring States Period, but after 227 BC because he was trying to get revenge for the death of his friend Jing Ke who tried to assassinate Qin Shi Huang.

Depending on the source Zengi was assassinated by a Frankish slave named Yarankash.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
missed again, my point was with a knife its likely a lot easier for the would-be assassin to give up before anyone even knows he was planning to kill anyone. with guns the assassination can be attempted from a much greater distance, so the would-be killer is less likely to give up
Click to expand...

You just make idle speculation. You have no facts. Evidence, please:
 
Wildy said:
Quickly looking I have a few names:

Pierre Barrière (1593) and Jean Châtel (1594) both tried to murder Henry IV of France, who was of course assassinated in 1610 by François Ravaillac.
Click to expand...

For Barrière, not enough info is given at your link to make any intelligible decision.

Father Guignard, was hanged and burned at the stake for his presumed part in the affair.
Click to expand...

So Chatel had an accomplice according to the authorities. He's out.

In the course of his trial, Ravaillac was frequently tortured in an attempt to make him identify accomplices
Click to expand...

The authorities didn't think Ravaillac acted alone, so this is a big fail. It also says that other carts coordinated the attack by blocking the King's carriage.

Wildy said:
Gao Jianli who tried to assassinate Qin Shi Huang during the Warring States Period, but after 227 BC because he was trying to get revenge for the death of his friend Jing Ke who tried to assassinate Qin Shi Huang.
Click to expand...

This sounds more like a fairy tale. You really are that desperate to bring up children's stories here? In any case, there is no indication that this dude is a nut.

Depending on the source Zengi was assassinated by a Frankish slave named Yarankash.
Click to expand...

A slave is not a lone nut. This slave was also an insider, and there is no indication the slave was a nut. It was an inside job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom