FBI finds no clear motive for the Mandalay Bay shooting.

A memorial south of the Mandalay Bay hotel. LA Times/AFP.

The FBI has concluded their investigation into Stephen Paddock and the Mandalay Bay shooting and have found no clear motive for the attack that left 58 people and hundreds wounded. LA Times. An FBI agent said that the attack was not about Mandalay Bay or any specific casino. Instead it may have been an attempt to do as much damage as possible and gain infamy. Paddock was found to have worked alone and had no political or religious affiliations. 

My Comment:

I haven't been able to find a copy of this report. Usually news articles will either have a direct link to the report or it will be embedded into the article but in this case I couldn't find a thing. From what I understand the report is only three pages long and is more of a summary of the FBI's findings than a detailed report like the one the local police released last summer. If I find it later I will post it here. 

This is an extremely unsatisfying end to a frustrating story. It does not make sense that the worst shooting in American history would have no motive to speak of. Though it is possible that there really was no motive to speak of, it is not an answer anyone wants to hear. It would be much more satisfying if there was some kind of 1000 page manifesto found that detailed exactly why Paddock killed 58 people before shooting himself. That is apparently not going to happen now. 

Without a clear motive it is very hard to learn anything from Paddock's attack. If the FBI has failed and doesn't really understand why Paddock did what he did it will make it that much harder to find the next Stephen Paddock. Though such an attack is extremely unlikely, we would have a better chance of preventing it if we understood why Paddock did what he did. 

So did he do it just because he wanted to be famous and had a death wish? I guess it's possible. It's not like any of the other theories make much sense. The "gun deal gone bad" narrative makes little sense because the weapons he used aren't exactly uncommon and it makes little sense for his buyers to kill him and then kill a bunch of random people. He's also not likely working for ISIS since he didn't seem to have any religious beliefs at all. And his politics seem non-existent, which means he's probably the only person in America that doesn't have strong political opinions. 

Without any evidence of motive anything else is mostly speculation. It seems that the FBI's conclusions are gathered from interviews and psychological profiles. This can give us some idea why he did it but is not enough to prove why he did what he did. Without the man's words we might never really know why he did it. 

I do have to say how amazing it is that the Mandalay Bay shooting has been memory holed. Though this story has been getting a little coverage, there has been almost no talk about the deadliest attack in American history involving shootings. The Parkland shooting, which was almost inconsequential in comparison in terms of victims, got months of coverage and launched a major gun control push. But the worst mass shooting in American history? Other than the bump stock ban, which was a huge mistake, there hasn't been anything. 

It's easy to think that is due to some conspiracy with the government hiding the truth about what happened in Las Vegas. But I think it has much more to do with the fact that nobody could really make political points on Stephen Paddock. He had no political or religious motives so it is impossible to blame anyone for the attack other than the attacker itself...