Las Vegas: Failed Arms Deal Theory Makes No Sense

I believe the theory was more along the lines of him thinking it was an arms deal to get the weapons there when really the 'buyers' had no intentions of buying anything. Set him up to be a patsy and get away free and clear. It doesn't make sense that he only fired for 11 minutes and the room was breached after 73 minutes and he apparently killed himself before it got breached. He had plenty of time to escape before swat arrived since there was a 62 minute gap between his last shots and the breach. Seems possible someone else was there and killed him and then took off before swat got to the room

a reply to: FlyingFox

Why did Charles Whitman need so many guns? What about the Columbine shooters?

a reply to: andrew778

Police arrived in about 15 minutes. The next hour was spent evacuating and securing the floor as well as planning an optimal engagement strategy.

My guess is that he stopped firing when either the security guard arrived at the room or when he saw police enter the building.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Something that I've seen a lot of people supporting across the LV threads is that the shooting was actually the result of an arms deal gone bad. While I think I recall a few people broaching the subject early on it really started picking up when a post (that couldn't even spell Paddock's name right) found it's way on to 4chan claiming Paddock was undercover FBI pulling a Fast & Furious type deal. While it seems like most people have dropped the FBI aspect of this story I'm still seeing a lot of people supporting the failed arms deal theory. And while it might seem all nice and neat at first, it definitely doesn't hold up to an real scrutiny.

What kind of arms dealer sells guns registered in his name?
What kind of serious purchaser is interested in off-the-shelf civilian grade guns?
What kind of serious purchaser is only interested in buying 23 guns and a few hundred rounds of ammo?
What kind of arms dealer sets up obvious cameras all around where the deal is going down?
What kind of arms dealer pre-loads all the magazines with ammo?
What kind of failed arms deal has the surviving party leaving the product behind?
If this was an arms deal why did Paddock have the hammer with him?
And most importantly, what kind of failed arms deal ends with the surviving party staging a suicide and then killing 59 people and injuring 500+ others?

These are just some of the questions that can be raised that have no real answer. Plenty more can easily be raised. But I think this should adequately illustrate that the tragedy in Vegas being the result of a failed arms deal makes absolutely no sense.

Well civilian grade isn't an issue - much is just as good as military, can be modified if necessary, or is fine for intended purpose.

As to only 23 arms available and few hundred rounds - well, we don't know if there was more there in earlier days or even hours or minutes before police came through the door.

The camera thing - only one was obvious - the one on tripod, and that may have been used for something else - videoing somthing out the window. the one on the door, self explanatory. Who knows when it was put there. If meeting someone, it could have been removed at the meeting time, then placed in place afterward to keep a look out. The others, again, who knows when they were put there.

Pre-loading - less space to move everything into the hotel - draws less attention. Would be at least 1/2 as much space taken up with them pre-loaded, maybe even as much as 1/4 the space if the ammo was packaged in high-end retail packaging.

Leaving product behind? - Oh, so you know what was in the room before? Can you prove there weren't another 5, or 10, or 40 guns in the days, hours or minutes before the police arrived?

The hammer? Who says he brought it? There is so much question about what happened that that isn't a certain fact. If he did and it was an arms deal - hammers are used in assembly of firearms (pins and such) - IDK if there is a useful side to this hammer or if it is only spiked. That being there really is a non-factor if it was an arms deal either way.

The last part "most important question" thing, well, if that can't be explained by looking at the present state of the world, IDK what to tell you. There are more plausible explanations for this than I'm willing to type but there have been plenty of plausible theories as to other reasons why this could have ended this way. Just b/c it doesn't fit the MSM STORY doesn't mean it's not true.

These questions seem to be intended to waste time and very little thinking has been put into answers for your questions before you posted them, or you just can't extrapolate very well. The theory of it being an arms deal doesn't mean that there wasnt' other things going on within the period being in the hotel. There are hundreds of possible reasons for any question you posted, just some being much more plausible and possible than others, though even those with a small degree of plausibility and possibility could still be true. A man "getting shot 3x in the chest" by a shooter (using automatic fire) about 1,200 ft away that isn't very possible (damn near totally impossible and just as implausible) yet that is the story the media is pushing. Now if he was acting like a sniper and the guy was tied to a chair - then the plausibility and possibility increase greatly, but as it stands now, that story just doesn't fit what happened.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

A man "getting shot 3x in the chest" by a shooter (using automatic fire) about 1,200 ft away that isn't very possible (damn near totally impossible and just as implausible) yet that is the story the media is pushing.

When you shoot nearly 300 rounds in 30 seconds into a crowd of thousands of people well inside the effective range of the weapon you're using, it is not at all implausible, much less "damn near impossible" to hit a target more than once. An off duty cop was shot in the neck and shoulder so I guess unless they're lying about where a guy got shot while he's still alive to say "by golly no I wasn't actually shot twice," it's not quite so implausible as you're trying to make it seem.

The fact that you're claiming "look at the state of the world" as some sort of answer to the question of why anybody who was ripping off a gun buy commit mass murder to cover up the gun buy is, to be blunt, ludicrous. Drug dealers and gun dealers get ripped off every day and nobody is running around shooting hundreds of people to try and cover it up.

Just because the questions are hard for you to answer with any sort of logical response doesn't make them a waste of anybody else's time.

The arrangement of the weapons doesn't seem like an arms deal. Magazines staged, etc.

If arms dealers wanted to off him for some reason, why the public shooting that appears to be preplanned. They would just off him some where.

Similar if he was going to rip them off.

a reply to: roadgravel

Yea that pretty much stomps this theory. I dont think the photos of the guy are even really the person or persons who committed this, they just use a random picture of a nobody who may not even be alive anymore. The scene in the room looks like a scene from a movie. Making sure you acknowledge the guns nicely placed around him. If they were honest like they claim to be with this then they would've shown us Osama Bin Laden's body. The man the responsible for the death of thousands but they dont show confirmation of his death? I like how theres a bunch of Hollywood movie scenario theories just goes to show how conditioned we are. Let's look at the overall results. You for sure cannot say that the police are not going to be more prepared for situations like this... The TPTB are training them to be soldiers.

I'm kinda of curious as to why a serving cart with his cameras was left in the hallway and no one said or bothered to move it?
I'm kinda wondering if he was a pawn for something bigger.
I'm kinda thinking that I don't believe half of what the media and government tells me anyways.
But, what they do tell us and we see from videos doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: Tekaran
But perhaps they were thinking about hiding in plain sight.

Yes. Perhaps it was the security guard who was shot, Jesus Campos, and the other guy wearing a security jacket that was seen being chased by security, who facilitated the meeting and/or carried out the shooting and framed Paddock.

Someone on the scene wearing a security jacket would probably not raise suspicions as an actual suspect.

We are discussing firearms and Stephen Paddock
anyone see this 39 second video?
An M240 audio vs LV shooter.
Lined up to overlap.

a reply to: IAMTAT

But I wonder if a user of illegal arms is a privacy of a nationalist politician such as a non of any terror moodists? Ha? what will anyone reply?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

And then, what if a weapon gives out a spirit of a shooter in any reply?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

What kind of serious purchaser is interested in off-the-shelf civilian grade guns?

"Military grade" is shorthand for "built to sloppy tolerances by the lowest bidder". They are designed to keep working well enough for as long as possible. Depending on the intended usage, some of the higher-end "off-the-shelf civilian grade" rifles could be preferable.

That said, while I don't think it was an arms deal gang a-gley, I'm not sure that all of your points are entirely convincing.

For points 1-3 & 6, you need to consider what dealers of any high end goods often bring with them. The answer is... samples. If this were a deal, he could have brought a selection to show what he could obtain. In that case, the guns in the room weren't the actual product so there was little sense in taking them.

If he were selling on behalf of another party, then it could be useful to bring guns that were registered to him in case they were intercepted by police. It's easier to say "I've brought my personal firearms to play with at the local range" than to explain a crate of firearms that are unregistered, or registered to someone else.

Or, it was a private sale, he heard that someone wanted guns and just brought everything for the seller to pick and choose.

For points 6 & 8, it could be that Paddock went into this assuming it was an arms sale, but the "sellers" were always intending to hi-jack the situation. Let the old fat white guy do all the risky work of getting the suite and getting all the firearms up there ready, then just walk in and take over.

For point 7 - that rather depends on who brought the hammer. In this hypothetical scenario, perhaps it was brought by the people he was meeting?

The points you make that I do agree with, however, include - why load all those mags and place obvious cameras?

The mag question might be answered by having multiple experienced people working together to get them all loaded up. Depending on when Paddock was out of the picture, they might have had quite some time to get ready.

As for the cameras. I don't know if anyone has actually discussed what kind of cameras were involved. I think I heard one suggestion that they were "nanny cam" type cameras, so they would transmit an image to a screen but not necessarily record anything. This would not be useful for an arms deal (the camera outside the room could draw attention) but useful for the shooter for security. The hypothetical "other shooters" could have brought them and set them up.

If they were obvious cameras set up to record internally... well, that's more difficult to explain to any useful satisfaction. Unless they were actually used, in which case the authorities will know very well who actually did the shooting so this is all somewhat academic.

This story actually makes a lot of sense, especially considering ISIS took credit for the massacre despite no obvious ties. It would also make sense that the FBI would cover this up to save their asses.

Why is this theory being shot down so quickly and getting buried when the official narrative can hardly hold up to any scrutiny at all? I'm guessing if I created a thread in support of this narrative it would get tossed pretty quick....