There are so many weird things about the shooter in the Las Vegas massacre that they can make your head spin. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination - I'm the opposite, if there is such a critter! - but I have more than a passing knowledge of what's generally called "tradecraft", based on military training and experience, working with "interesting people" from the foreign equivalent of three-letter agencies, and some exposure to law enforcement. All that background is causing my eyebrows to rise into my hairline when I read what's coming out about the Las Vegas tragedy.
Aesop, over at Raconteur Report, has done an excellent job of putting together the questions that worry him. (They worry me, too, as they do many colleagues and friends who are as well or better trained and experienced, including some very highly qualified people with very "interesting" backgrounds.) In chronological order, see these posts. It's worth reading all of them, but if you're pushed for time, the third, fifth and sixth are particularly interesting.
I'm not suggesting that a US government agency or agencies was/were behind the Las Vegas incident. However, I am suggesting that there are so many unexplained actions, events, "coincidences" and the like, that I don't see how this could possibly be a typical "lone wolf" terrorist action. There was too much planning, organization, etc. They must have taken months. This was no sudden, impulsive act. Either this guy was a sort of "super-lone-wolf" with (for a civilian) a truly amazing knowledge of tradecraft (not just the theory, but actually putting it into practice, and doing it so well - at the level of a highly experienced agent, in some cases - that he could be used as a case study at Quantico or Langley) . . . or he had help from a person or persons with that level of knowledge. If neither is true, then how the hell did he get all his ducks so neatly and professionally in a row?
There's also the fact that the shooter's equipment, tactics, etc. seem to dot all the i's and cross all the t's of hot-button gun control talking points. I could understand it if there was a measure of correlation, but there are so many "coincidences" that it's almost suspicious. I could be wrong, of course . . . but one does wonder. Could this man have been set up as an agent provocateur, to kick-start a previously failing agenda? I hear from some of my former colleagues in law enforcement that the same question is being asked in certain official circles. We shall see, I suppose.
(By the way, Donald Sensing does his usual superb job of analyzing the Las Vegas tragedy in the light of the gun control debate, and bringing reason and logic to bear on it. Go read the whole thing. It's worth your time.)
I have many questions. There are - at least at present - very few answers. I suspect the coming weeks and months will be more than interesting, as the investigation progresses.