Seems like a more understandable picture about this man is taking shape. Hopefully over time further elaboration will eliminate much of the initial confusion.

Still, what he did is probably something that cannot be fully understood, if indeed something so evil and deranged can ever be understood.

This is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. Several times. I agree completely.

Actually, magicians ought to be able to understand madness because it is a form of illusion, an illusion being a distortion of the truth. If one stands at one end of a long table the far end appears smaller than it really is, which an illusion caused by distance. By the same token, when a man is on drugs, drunk or mad, his mind is somewhat away from reality, which causes a distortion of truth, an illusion. In short, he is then not seeing things as they actually are. Come to think of it, killing people at a distance is not so hard, psychologically speaking, as doing so close up: from a high place people can look like ants.

Since this is madness, isn't it more a form of delusion rather than illusion?

It could be. A delusion is a complete lie rather than a distortion of the truth. In short, you would have to be completely out of your mind to be delusional.

The intelligence services use illusions, in the sense that their stories will contain an element of truth, rather than be complete lies, to give their stories plausible deniability you see.

This comes up repeatedly and there appears to be no satisfactory answer to achieve a meeting of the minds. I'm sure it is incomprehensible for many who are not native-born Americans and not steeped in the history of the US why so many of us own and possess guns and intend to keep them.

Although we share much in common with our friends in other countries, the USA and its constitutional/political philosophy is not the same as that of England, France, Australia, Canada, and so on, nor is its history the same. Keep in mind, the US was born of a violent revolution against the British Crown (King George), and much of the country was unexplored and hostile at that time.

The people who were tragically mowed down by a vehicle recently in NYC, and prior to that by vehicle in France and England (and I don't mean to make light of this), died the same as if they were shot, but shooting someone has a more horrific connotation or "feel," especially for those born and raised outside the USA. However, what can be more horrific than mowing down large groups of people with cars or trucks or using bombs, explosives, suicide vests, etc., much of which is homemade? It is all pretty much unimaginable to most of us.

Gun dealers are in business to make money and their business is legal. There are no federal registration requirements for owning most firearms, nor is there a limit as to the amount purchased. And when people wish to collect guns, they usually only buy one or two at a time. Quite frankly, even if such registration existed, there no doubt would be ways to get around it. I believe the shooter in this case bought his weapons over a period of time although I am not absolutely certain of that.

Gun dealers are not required to notify federal authorities of legal gun purchases in any amount as far as I know.

And that is just the way it is.

No, it is not incomprehensible for me to get gun ownership at all, it is the amount that is the question. What is incomprehensible is why the cops are not notified that somebody is buying enough guns to start a war. Would it not be sensible to set up an office, with a computer linked to gun dealers, so that the dealers can log the amount somebody or some nut is buying?

Perhaps, but I don't believe it would be lawful unless Congress enacted a law to do so. Even then, it might be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional and a violation of the second amendment. Of course, I am not an attorney steeped in the law but that would be my first thought on this.

My second thought would be it would have prevented nothing. He would only need one or two guns, not 10 or more, with plenty of ammunition clips, to do the same damage. Additionally, there are many people who have a fairly large collection of weapons and 99% of them harm no one.

Even if it were legal to notify the police, what could they do? They can't confiscate the weapons and legally I don't even think the owner of the weapons would even have to talk to the police if they knocked on his door to inquire. They certainly could not enter his house without legal justification.

And there are other ways that the killer could have inflicted great harm even without guns. As I recall, on one of the news reports it stated the people were basically trapped in the enclosure because there was one entrance and one exit, the others were closed or blocked off by security. At least that is what the report stated.

Cool. Just checking. I thought your "questions" were all fair and reasonable as well. I suspect that LE knows the answer to a few of them, but perhaps aren't saying for reasons regarding legal tactics/maneuvering.

Jason

The reason that most investigations are not transparent during them is that they are fluid. They take on a life of their own. Look at what happened to Richard Jewel after the Olympic bombings in Atlanta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

Investigation is not a straight line and can have many nuances that if you are not familiar with what is going on 100% can lead you to wrong conclusions. Even if you take away the fact that you don't want people being investigated to know, (Which should be fairly obvious.) the lives of people can be ruined simply by being a "person of interest". This is one very serious component of doing investigations.

So I do not think that the public's "need to know" supersedes the right of people to not be accused of crimes they may have not committed. Most simply want to know, not need to know.

Sadly once again, there is another mass shooting. This time in Texas.

The US President says "the shooting is a Mental Health problem, not a gun problem"

Well using that logic, Kim Jong-un's testing and firing Nuclear missles is not a Nuclear arms problem...but rather a mental health problem, Get Kim some mental health therapy.

.

@Zauberman:

Do you really think both situations are the same?

On the one hand we have a brutal communist dictator who wants to become a nuclear power and who hates the US. On the other hand, we have very disturbed individual who was mentally disturbed and out of control.

Down through history we have had many "leaders" of countries that have engaged in mass carnage. Were they all disturbed or evil or did they simply have a different believe system and agenda that made sense to them?

@Zauberman:

I should add we probably don't want to get too far off the original subject of this thread. Getting into philosophical and political discussion and going off on a tangent is probably not pertinent to this thread.

Besides that The Gambling Spot has been designated a nuclear free zone.

Cleverly put. Actually made me chuckle. I Concur, The Gambling Spot shall remain nuclear-free. :-D

Can someone from LV comment this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017......e-police

Apparently Tucker Carlson of Fox News is in Las Vegas today (Tues. 12/5), to do some investigative reporting on this tragic event. I will watch his news report tonight to see if he has any further comments or insights on this occurrence.

Tucker has previously had an ex-FBI agent and also and ex-Metro detective on his show, on a couple of occasions, both of whom felt that more information should have been forthcoming at this point. Evidently the FBI is really in charge or responsible for the investigation, with cooperation from Metro. In fact, the ex-detective from Metro said that Metro Homicide, which usually handles a case like this, was incensed and outraged that it was taken out of their hands and delegated to another group within Metro.

Also, the current discussion of apparent shenanigans within the FBI is causing some to question their "above politics" policy.

Additionally, a couple of attorneys who are involved in this case have stated that they have been pretty much stonewalled by MGM Corp. They are conducting their own separate investigations regarding liability of MGM.

I don't mean to diminish this horrific event by any means, but this is not the worst case of mass carnage of US citizens to have occurred. The worst was the massacre of men, woman and children by the US government in Waco Texas, directed by Attorney General Janet Reno under color of law. That of course was pretty much swept under the carpet and I don't think anyone was held accountable.

I hope this investigation is not swept under the carpet also.

Let's see if some further light is shed on this situation in the next day or so.

I'm not from Las Vegas Arnold, but I hope my comment is relevant to your link ... the Sheriff in this article seems more than a bit silly, in that there is actually no reason whatsoever (in the absence of any hard evidence) to presume that the a-hole shooter had any help from anybody.

If I was guessing, I'd guess that the Sheriff was terribly choked that he wasn't really involved in the investigation any longer, and this was his way of re-inserting himself into the narrative.

In short, the Sheriff seems like an idiot.

But I will agree with Cag that it seems that the case has been somewhat withdrawn from the public eye intentionally.
That this will be resolved with an eventual detailed release of information related to the case from the FBI and the local and state officials who are investigating doesn't at all seem to be a "sure thing" at this point in time.

Thanks to the both of you!

This article was so... weird.

Did not get much of additionally information from the Tucker Carlson TV program. He had an attorney for some of the victims, and Doug Poppa, a former police officer and casino security expert on the program.

The attorney said that MGM corporation basically has hunkered down on this shooting and their attorneys and high-level corp. executives will not release any information, which probably is understandable as their liability is no doubt huge at this point. One of their corporate executives signed the permit for the event so they are directly involved.

The attorney for the victims currently has a subpoena to obtain the information she needs from MGM for her pending liability suit.

Poppa has written numerous articles about the case and said that it has been virtually impossible to get even basic information from LV Metro. They initially were somewhat rude and dismissive when basic questions were asked and now they simply say it is part of an ongoing investigation.

Tucker Carlson, as part of his investigative reporting, says that was his experience also.

A very important question that no one has answered is, where was the 40-man swat team at the time? It seems that no one knows. Another important question is, why was the Metro homicide department removed from the case and it given to a department that does not handle homicides?

Very perplexing.

Of course, the FBI will release no information as that is their policy during an investigation but they do appear to be somewhat annoyed at Sheriff Lombardo's speculations.

It will be interesting to see if we get more complete and definitive answers when the investigation is finally completed. It seems that the official responses to date create more questions than answers.

I will say that the handling of public relations leaves a little to be desired by LV Metro. I don't mean to be overly critical because I am a big believer in supporting my local law enforcement people. Most of them are pretty dedicated and they have a tough job. However, the TV appearances by the Sheriff is somewhat uninspiring.

But then again, perhaps he is simply overwhelmed by this case and maybe getting a lot of pressure from MGM.

Overwhelmed by the largest mass shooting in recent history? Ya think?

People looking to place blame with every word uttered and you can't imagine why they are not responsive. Hmmm I wonder? Maybe not the way anyone thinks it should be done but in this day and age you don't get into trouble for things you don't say. Nobody can twist it later. It is pure seelf defence. I see their logic, but don't think it is a correct course of action.