Too many possibilities at this point and little evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34348875)

Reality is coming!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34347761)

This is a new age. The Muslim Menace can take many forms.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34347850)

his "gf" was probably just his gf because he paid for her to do whatever she wanted, so she eatprayloved 11 months a yaer, and then returned on each equinox to service her sugardaddy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34347897)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/452117/based-early-reports-las-vegas-shooting-very-very-strange

Before I begin, let me clearly state two things. First, as I note in the title of this post, my observations are based on early reports, and early reports are often wrong. Second, do not read this post as implying any sort of conspiracy theory of any kind. I’m merely noting the facts as we currently understand them — and how they differ from recent mass shootings. As virtually everyone has noted from the abundant video footage of the incident, it certainly sounds as if the shooter used either fully-automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons modified (through, for example, a bump fire stock) to closely simulate automatic fire. Moreover, the police are reporting that he had “more than 10 rifles.” He apparently rented his corner room for days and may have even set up cameras to detect when police were approaching. That’s all strange enough, but it’s even more unusual when you consider that his own family apparently didn’t know that he maintained a stockpile of guns. Here’s this, from the gunman’s brother, suggesting that the gunman wasn’t an avid gun guy at all: Put all this together, and the shooting is flat-out bizarre. It’s significantly different from virtually any other mass shooting in U.S. history. If the weapons were fully automatic, then he likely would have spent immense sums of money to obtain them legally, jumping through extensive legal hoops. This twitter thread, from Stephen Gutowski, is very helpful: Given these steps, it’s no wonder that crimes with fully-automatic weapons are extraordinarily rare. As my colleague Charlie Cooke tweeted earlier this morning, legally-owned fully-automatic weapons have been used in three crimes since 1934. So, a person who’s “not a gun guy” has either expended untold thousands of dollars to legally purchase fully-automatic weapons, somehow found them on the black market, or purchased and substantially modified multiple semi-automatic weapons — and did so with enough competence to create a sustained rate of fire. This same person also spent substantial sums purchasing just the right hotel room to maximize casualties. I cannot think of a single other mass shooter who went to this level of expense and planning in the entire history of the United States. And there was no real warning? His family was unaware? His brother also reported that the shooter had no meaningful political or religious affiliations. “He just hung out.” At the same time, however, there are reports that a woman told a group of concert-goers, “You’re all going to die tonight.” I’m not ready to draw any conclusions from these reports, but it’s worth highlighting how extraordinary this attack seems to be. Given the firepower and the packed mass of people, it’s easy to see how the casualty count was so high, even firing from an extreme range (by the standards of mass shootings.) This was the University of Texas tower attack on steroids, conducted out of nowhere, with meticulous planning and at great expense, from a person who doesn’t seem to fit any normal profile of a mass shooter. There is much we have yet to learn, but for now, this is one of the most chilling and mysterious events I’ve ever seen.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34347980)

He may be WITH HER.

https://streamable.com/adjlq

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34350490)

1. Some guy that has no military background plans one of the most successful massacres in US history.

2. Everything we know about this guy tells us he isn't the sort of guy to do this. Not associated with any radical ideologies either.

3. ISIS claims responsibility, which they don't have a history of doing unless they have some connection

We're missing something. I suspect there are definitely more people involved than what we're seeing. The guy we're focusing on may be engineered to be the focus but not the actual mastermind here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34356427)

2. Eh, human psychology is complex.

3. ISIS has made false claims before, especially recently as they are losing ground and desperate to garner attention. Thus far, no evidence that the shooter was motivated by religion or politics.

Stop reading Infowars like a typical 90 IQ Trumptard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34356455)

2. Not really.

3. Examples?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34356480)

This summer, ISIS claimed responsibility for an attack at a Manila resort and claimed they planted a bomb at CDG airport. Both were false.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34356586)

I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy alone, too, but even the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that it's somewhat likely that that's not the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3750816&forum_id=2#34356780)