Quote :

"so crime scene photos can get "leaked" but the cctv footage can't? You don't see anything kind of odd there?"

photos are small in file size and could have been taken with any cell phone present at the scene. CCTV footage likely goes through a much tighter chain of command.

The Columbine basement tapes never leaked out, and they were supposedly destroyed by police in 2011.

10/6/2017 11:23:25 AM

Quote :

"The Columbine basement tapes never leaked out, and they were supposedly destroyed by police in 2011."

makes sense

10/6/2017 11:28:00 AM

Wait who did that one JayMCnasty?

[Edited on October 6, 2017 at 11:44 AM. Reason : V your rolly eyes makes it seem you have an alternate theory ]

10/6/2017 11:31:28 AM

Not saying anybody else did it. Why destroy the evidence though?

10/6/2017 11:41:06 AM

anybody buying a bump stock now that peeps are asking for them to become illegal?

#DeyTookErGunz

10/6/2017 11:44:58 AM

at 100,000 atm, it doesn't matter what the unicycle is made of

10/6/2017 11:55:31 AM

anyone buying one now is just an idiot. They're not going to reopen the machine gun registry and allow people to register them as an NFA item - they're just going to ban them outright.

10/6/2017 12:01:18 PM

what if you just have a few on hand in case of....you know....zombies and shit?

10/6/2017 1:49:26 PM

not gonna matter what's banned when 3d printers start making all this shit anyway

10/6/2017 1:52:54 PM

why would anyone want a bumpstock if they're illegal? If you're going to risk 10 years in prison, do it right and make a drop-in auto sear or a lightning link. Hell, a shoestring tied to an M1A would be a better full-auto mod than these stocks are, since you could still shoulder the gun properly and aim.



The ATF has ruled that this is a machine gun, but a bump stock is not.

10/6/2017 2:18:34 PM

they're not illegal yet. I was wondering if any of the paranoid gun-nuts were going to stock up on bump stocks before they do become illegal. same way the paranoid gun-nuts stock up on guns thinking they'll soon become illegal to own/possess.

10/6/2017 4:07:47 PM

people panic buy guns because most gun laws passed in the last 30 years grandfathered in previously owned legal firearms. ATF could issue a ruling next week making bumpstocks the same as an unregistered machine gun, making them illegal with no grandfathering of existing items whatsoever.

[Edited on October 6, 2017 at 4:47 PM. Reason : there are people panic buying them now, but it's a dumb decision.]

10/6/2017 4:45:56 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/police-confident-no-one-else-shooters-room-las-vegas-attack-n808431

Confident he was alone

10/7/2017 1:46:01 AM

^cops also said they didnt know why that cabin caught on fire in Cali with the cop killer in it too

10/7/2017 10:08:32 AM

How did he get a specific suite facing the concert in a hotel that large? Just pure luck, or did he specifically request a room facing that direction. I understand asking for a room facing the ocean, but asking for a room in Vegas specifically facing a concert venue seems like it could raise some red flags, or at least be a strange request (at least in hind sight). I guess maybe he requested that specific suite bc he likes it? But then again, I'm sure there's multiple suites that are identical facing other directions.

10/7/2017 3:41:18 PM

I don't think that requesting a room with that view is necessarily a red flag, people could do that so they could watch the concert from their room/different vantage point.

10/7/2017 4:03:31 PM

The room was facing the strip

10/7/2017 4:06:43 PM

I always ask for a room facing a certain direction depending on what hotel I’m staying in and what views are possible.


OH MAH GAWD!!!!111 IM A MASS MURDERER!!!!!1111

10/7/2017 4:23:41 PM

https://youtu.be/qjjoVAgqp4s?t=1m40s

10/7/2017 4:39:15 PM

Most likely the suite all undercover CIA stays in.

10/7/2017 5:13:08 PM

Still no CCTV or ballistics

10/7/2017 5:44:59 PM

I read somewhere that he booked the room through Airbnb, so he would have known exactly where it faced ahead of time.

10/7/2017 10:06:41 PM

Quote :

"How did he get a specific suite facing the concert in a hotel that large? Just pure luck, or did he specifically request a room facing that direction"

It's pretty common to request a high floor (or even a specific specific floor range) corner room etc facing in a certain direction. Check any popular hotel's https://www.tripadvisor.com room tips.

As was previously posted ITT he requested a similar room for the Life is Beautiful festival in Vegas and they weren't available. He planned this for a while.

[Edited on October 8, 2017 at 12:13 AM. Reason : ^^ you were running on fumes with that shit 4 pages ago]

10/8/2017 12:12:41 AM

Still it would be worth a mention for the police to confirm how he booked the room. Just so we know Peggy, head receptionist in Langley didn't book it for him.

10/8/2017 8:29:32 AM

Quote :

"^^ you were running on fumes with that shit 4 pages ago"

so we just write it off and assume everything told to the public is true with no hard evidence other than some pictures/video after the fact?

I saw a video last night of the first breach into the room. The body there was in fact his. Everything shown in the video could have potentially been planted there. I'm not saying it was, but without seeing other pieces of evidence nobody can truly say Paddock did this for sure.

[Edited on October 8, 2017 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2017 1:28:16 PM

EVERYTHING OUR GOVERNMENT SAYS IS TRUE
DO NOT QUESTION ANYTHING THEY SAY
EVERYTHING OTHER GOVERNMENTS SAY IS A LIE
DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY
YOU MUST RESPECT THE FLAG
POLICE ARE HEROES
SOLDIERS ARE FIGHTING OVER THERE SO WE CAN TYPE THIS HERE
FOUNDING FATHERS WERE DEMIGODS WHO KNEW THE FUTURE

10/8/2017 1:35:25 PM

10/8/2017 1:43:29 PM

Here is an interesting take on things copied and pasted verbatim from another message board. Please note that I am not necessarily espousing this theory. However, it is interesting to consider, and not exactly a conspiracy theory -- rather, it is speculation on possible motivations.

Quote :

"Here’s a theory sent to my e-mail from a source I’m not too familiar with, he usually e-mails political stuff about the EU: The fact pattern in this event is striking for not fitting any known profile. In particular: The gentleman concerned had no known political or religious affiliations. The level of premeditation is unusual and crystal clear from his mass buying of guns and the cautious systematic smuggling operation to ferry them to his room together with the illegal modifications and the position of the room he chose and occupied for several days beforehand. This denotes a deeply serious commitment to his act. And one which leaves no doubt that act was conceived to generate the maximum possible publicity. The question then is: 'publicity' for what exactly? And the answer would appear to be 'nothing that can be identified'. But consider the moral behind the following joke (I assure you it has a point beyond humour): A known smuggler crosses the border every day at a particular crossing. Every day his suitcase is searched and nothing is found. After 20 years he crosses for a last time and confides to the policeman who has been searching him all that while that he is retiring. The policeman asks him 'Ok - since you're clean today and will never cross the border again tell me this - you've been smuggling - right?' The man says 'Right.'.The policeman says 'Smuggling what?' The man says 'Suitcases.' Hold that 'hiding in plain sight' concept as we return to the shooting. This man amassed (rough figures) 24 guns in the hotel and another 19 at his home - 42 guns in total. He spent some $100,000 on buying them. The guns at his home are one thing but he also spent days filling his hotel room with more weapons and ammunition than he could ever conceivably use along with an array of advanced modifications and accessories. Everything brand new. And very expensive. And mostly entirely redundant. Representing in effect an enormous waste of money and time and risk. Except that is in the realm of generating massive publicity. Guaranteed massive publicity. Yet despite having gone to enormous lengths to achieve that goal we are asked to believe this same man never troubled - never took the most elementary steps - to speak to that publicity. Indeed left behind no trace of anything that might demonstrate indicate or even hint at his motive or motives. That would appear to make very little sense. We would argue the opposite - that it makes absolute sense. Because this gentleman did not simply fail to leave behind a motive; He took substantial trouble to ensure that no motive could be found - or attributed to him. All of which can lead us to only one conclusion: It has been said that 'the medium is the message'. In this case that is the literal truth. There is only one plausible motive for what this man did. And here it is: This man wished to telegraph to America in graphic form the hard irrefutable evidence that guns and gun ownership and the ease of gun purchase in America are an evil and must be controlled. On that hypothesis everything now makes sense. And it must be said his concept has a certain demented genius. Because even if the public learns and believes that his motive was all about 'guns' the horror of the act itself - an act to protest such acts - is in some ways even worse for being plain evidence that there is no limit to the insanity to which guns can be put. Here then is our argument: 1. His long planned and carefully executed purchase of a virtual armoury of unprecedented scope and scale guaranteed that very armoury would inevitably become the central focus of the media. 2. His assiduous removal of evidence of any tangible motive also removed the possibility that the news cycle might move on from guns - simply the means of the killing - to considering the more interesting issues of motive and message - be it political or economic or environmental or anything else. 3. This man was a highly methodical and systematic thinker. Nothing in the scenario that unfolded was left to chance - even down to positioning cameras to surveil the corridor. It is therefore inconceivable that this was all done in this precise manner for no reason. That there is no message. But of course there is indeed a message. It only happens to be implicit instead of explicit. That message is 'guns'. And that message is being trawled over every minute of every day on every network in America. Given the nature of the man and the facts this is not a chance outcome. On the contrary given the known facts it is indeed the only possible outcome. An outcome so obvious that anyone given the full story beforehand would have predicted as inevitable. 4. The people he chose to kill supports the hypothesis on 'guns'. Country and Western fans are virtually guaranteed to own or at least to defend the ownership of guns. By a certain logic this provides the gunman with two sound moral positions (because it is not beyond possibility he has a conscience): First - While killing a very large number of innocent people is an horrendous crime it is nonetheless entirely justifiable - in moral terms - if it causes a restriction on guns. Because such a restriction would - it is widely held - save innumerable lives in the long run. There is no evidence for this but it is still a widely and passionately held belief. Second - Since the people he is shooting are actively or passively defenders of guns and an obstacle to gun control they are by definition responsible in part for all the people who have been and continue to be killed by guns."

TL;DR: The shooter perpetuated this act with a conscious LACK of other motivations, purely to necessitate a discussion about gun violence and accessibility with the long-term goal of preventing future such incidents, and thus, actually saving lives.

I think point number 4 above falls a little flat, given that he apparently cased another, previous concert which was not associated with country music.

10/8/2017 2:44:20 PM

I was talking to some guys at work about this a couple days after it happened and said the same thing. That maybe he purposefully didn't leave any evidence of a motive or any evidence that he was simply a dude with mental problems so that folks would have nothing to point a finger at besides the guns.

10/8/2017 3:04:07 PM

I think the video he recorded will be the key

10/8/2017 5:22:46 PM

The day after the shooting I was telling people it would be crazy if they found a note that simply said I bought all of these weapons legally and was able to do all of this with no problems. If this doesn't show that we need gun control then I don't know what else will. I don't know what his motivation was but this seems as reasonable as any other at the moment.

10/8/2017 9:04:06 PM

He could’ve made his point without killing 50+ people.

10/8/2017 9:08:15 PM

Raiders fan upset that they're moving from Oakland is just as plausible a theory

10/8/2017 9:14:02 PM

^^Not so sure. We've already been there. Nothing changed.

10/8/2017 9:14:21 PM

We’ve also had dozens of mass shootings. Most of which involved high power weapons. And not much has changed.

10/8/2017 9:16:24 PM

If we assume the theory in the long post above is correct, does it lend credence to any gun control argument, or just weaken it??
Like... does a batshit crazy man making a good argument while killing someone else really have a good argument!?!? Just a thought...

^ without getting TOO much into the gun argument, mass shootings are such a drop in the bucket on the grand scheme of gun violence in the US, its hard to make any sort of really effective legislation. They happen to be very memorable, but really they pale in comparison to the number of deaths every year from hand guns. I'm not making any statement on what exactly the US should do about them if anything. But, if you stopped every mass shooting in the US every year, you really don't make a dent in our overall gun violence statistics. Maybe that was posted earlier in the thread... but I didn't see it.

[Edited on October 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/8/2017 10:01:36 PM

^^Yes, that's true, but I'm speaking with respect to the theory posited several posts above. The key difference could eventually be that all other recent mass shootings have had more obvious motivations, signs of metal illness, red flags, etc. Read the long post. A key point is that there could be very little else to fixate on, which necessarily extends the discussion about gun control that usually gets diluted and / or diverted in other shootings once motivations become clear. The fact that (to date) there is no obvious motivation is unique.

^In theory, the end would justify the means. If the absolute goal is reducing total gun violence fatalities, then committing an otherwise heinous act that forces meaningful change in gun laws could result in notably fewer overall future deaths, even whilst taking its own direct impacts into account.

Just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not sure I buy it, and they may eventually come up with some smoking gun evidence of motivation. It is still early in the investigation, I suppose.

10/8/2017 10:19:36 PM

The victims and families should at least be allowed to sue a manufacturer or two. Like, if you can sue a bar for overserving a drunk driver, you'd think they could find out who made and sold all these guns to Paddock and sue their tails off.

It just seems perverse. Every time we have a massacre, politicians posture a bit about new laws, and gun lovers race out to stock up on more guns before the new laws go into effect. But the new laws never materialize, and gun manufacturers just get even wealthier and wealthier.


Like, I can't imagine...getting shot up and paralyzed with a colostomy bag or a bowel program where some underpaid stranger comes to my efficiency apartment and manually stimulates my bowels for me. And when friends and family visit, I gotta pretend to be all grateful that disability insurance is finally going to cover my monthly swim therapy class and cross my fingers I might find someone to have sex with at adult summer camp. But I can't sue the guys who shamelessly get rich off all that?

10/8/2017 10:28:51 PM

sue them because they made a product that does what it's designed to do?

10/8/2017 10:40:06 PM

Quote :

"If we assume the theory in the long post above is correct"

I just can't do that, especially without a shred of any corroborating evidence.

Quote :

"His long planned and carefully executed purchase of a virtual armoury of unprecedented scope and scale guaranteed that very armoury would inevitably become the central focus of the media."

It's not unprecedented. I know plenty of people with collections far larger.

Quote :

"His assiduous removal of evidence of any tangible motive"

Pretty damn early to claim that.

Quote :

"This man was a highly methodical and systematic thinker."

Except he stopped killing people way before he had to.

Quote :

"The people he chose to kill supports the hypothesis on 'guns'. Country and Western fans are virtually guaranteed to own or at least to defend the ownership of guns. By a certain logic this provides the gunman with two sound moral positions ... ... ..."

Except he targeted other festivals prior that weren't country and western.

Theory is dumb.

Quote :

"sold all these guns to Paddock and sue their tails off."

What law did the gun shops that sold him all these guns break? There aren't laws that limit the amount of guns you can own. There's no "over-serving" someone guns.

10/8/2017 10:50:23 PM

^You don't have to break the law to get sued, silly. Civil trials are often the first step to changing an industry's practices and later even changing the law. For instance, Maryland doesn't have a law against overserving, but you can still sue the bars there.

^^No, sue them for selling their products irresponsibly.

Lawsuits are very powerful tools for changing the behavior of various businesses and organizations, and they've been used against practically all the big ones with great effect.

Seems to me we don't need politicians pretending to make new laws or even trying to make new laws. The gun industry can and should sensibly regulate itself. The same way various bars in Maryland choose not to sell drinks to a drunk, belligerent guy, the gun manufacturers can choose not to sell 33 guns to a random person in less than a year. We don't need laws or government for sensible behavior here--we just need a little civil litigation with child-sized coffins and whatnot.

10/8/2017 11:43:41 PM

The gun manufacturers probably have some pretty good lawyers, though

10/8/2017 11:52:45 PM

if someone burns down my house, i can't successfully sue the oil company and the match manufacturer. give me a break.

10/8/2017 11:54:56 PM

Quote :

"You don't have to break the law to get sued, silly. Civil trials are often the first step to changing an industry's practices and later even changing the law. For instance, Maryland doesn't have a law against overserving, but you can still sue the bars there."

You can sue the bars all you want, but you won't win. And said lawsuits have done nothing to change to Maryland's laws.

Quote :

"the gun manufacturers can choose not to sell 33 guns to a random person in less than a year"

I'm no expert in gun sales, but I don't think the manufacturers sell directly to the public much. There are middlemen...see who this crazy fuck bought all his guns from.

10/8/2017 11:59:05 PM

Correct, the manufacturers have nothing to do with his buying habits.

An FFL (dealer) wouldn't necessarily, either. He could have bought one or two, and bought a couple from someone else, and so on. Nor would they have any reason to be alarmed and refuse sales to him just based on that--partly because there are plenty of people with 40-50 guns; that wouldn't register on their "oh shit" radar, and partly because having 40-50 guns has nothing to do with what he did, anyway. I don't understand bringing dozens of guns to the hotel. He could have done the same thing with a couple. Well, maybe firing sustained at that rate, he'd need a few to let them cool off...but not 30 or however many he had in there.

Suing manufacturers is crazy. I don't like that they have that immunity in principle, but the way it's been abused makes it necessary.

10/9/2017 12:38:23 AM

^^^^We're not allowed to sue them anyway. The only meaningful gun legislation we've passed in over a decade has been to protect the gun manufacturers from lawsuits. They straight up don't even have to shell out the cash to defend themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Tobacco companies, McDonald's, hospitals, dog owners, cereal manufacturers, whoever we want...we can sue all of them for anything. But we can only sue a gun manufacturer when their product is faulty or a gun store when you can prove they sold a gun negligently.

Quote :

"You can sue the bars all you want, but you won't win. And said lawsuits have done nothing to change to Maryland's laws."

Winning isn't necessarily the point, and change takes time. The last big lawsuit filed in Maryland ended with a 4-3 opinion, and the majority explained plainly that they simply didn't want to legislate from the bench.

Quote :

"I'm no expert in gun sales, but I don't think the manufacturers sell directly to the public much. There are middlemen...see who this crazy fuck bought all his guns from."

I'm aware. Despite middlemen, is it really unreasonable to expect manufacturers to keep track of who is buying how many of their weapons in a given year? I don't think it is. And, if it is really that hard for them to do, then maybe they need to cut out the middlemen. There are all sorts of ways they could creatively and easily solve the problem voluntarily.

^Do you even think we have a gun violence problem in the United States?

10/9/2017 12:47:44 AM

Quote :

"He had been buying guns since 1982."

Quote :

"He was also willing to fight to defend what was his. During the riots in Los Angeles in the 1990s, he went to the roof of an apartment complex he owned in a flak jacket and armed with a gun, waiting for the rioters, Mr. Franks said."

Doesn't quite sound like a gun hater to me.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/us/stephen-paddock-vegas.html

[Edited on October 9, 2017 at 12:54 AM. Reason : This is the type of articles y'all need to post. New info.]

10/9/2017 12:53:33 AM

Quote :

"I'm aware. Despite middlemen, is it really unreasonable to expect manufacturers to keep track of who is buying how many of their weapons in a given year?"

Yes. Get the law through Congress then come talk to me.

10/9/2017 1:04:18 AM

Businesses change voluntarily all the time, especially after they've been sued.

Objections on the grounds of impracticality fall on deaf ears with me. They have the ability to sell guns sensibly and efficiently in all kinds of ways.

And quit being so sassy. It's weird.

10/9/2017 3:28:11 AM

^ I understand where you're trying to go, but I disagree with what it seems like you're proposing.

Drunk driving kills lots of people too. Should alcohol companies and car companies track how much alcohol you buy? how many cars you own? Every maker of widget X knowing how many widgets you own, when you got them, etc? We're already being tracked like crazy for ad revenue/marketing.

Neither are illegal to own, and its up to the individual to be responsible with the items, yet people kill each other (and themselves) all the time with these two. Tracking won't help, it'll only encourage more of a surveillance-state than what we already have.

I know we all want answers, but unfortunately, with the information we have at this moment, it doesn't look like anything short of the hotel having metal detectors (which he would have known about beforehand) would have stopped this from happening. Potentially the body count could have been reduced if he didn't have the bump-stops, but also potentially not. If he would have used just regular semi-auto, he probably could have had the same or higher body count by being more deliberate in his execution of the actual shooting (ie, well aimed shots), instead of the apparent "pray and spray" that it appears he was doing.

You can have all the controls in place, and some crazy person will do a crazy thing. Shit happens, it sucks but that's the way it is. I mean shit, we can armchair quarterback this all we want, but even those closest to him apparently didn't even know about his gun collection or state of mind.

at any rate, that's my $0.02

10/9/2017 6:30:40 AM