They won't know your name and the act of buying it is legal, no ID req'd.
As someone who's done gun transfers in parking lots. I own a cell phone. If I think your suspicion after the fact I can take your photo. Take a photo of your car. And if I don't have either I can personal give a description of the person. And I have a go-pro on my dash...
Why have it relate to someone connected that knows who you are.
Because if all these weapons where originally owned by a single person and where "stolen" from one location with ease that would scare more people than a untraceable deal that they may have no say in. AKA in the eyes of a anti-gunner more gun regulations might stop these type of situations.
Why set up a buy in a casino? Dumbest place ever. 20 rifles is nothing and wouldn't raise alarms at all here. 300 guns, now your a undercover fbi arms dealer.
Your literally making me copy and paste from my OP.
This is covered in no less than three paragraphs. But since I know your having trouble here you go.
Alright the "gun deal" and why it doesn't makes sense to allot of people and even me. Since I love to play devils advocate I ask myself why would he purchase the firearms himself? A direct link back to him. Not only that but the profit margin wouldn't be worth it clearly.
We need to first break our conditioning of a what a gun deal entails. It's ultimately the transfer of weapons for anything else including favors. It's not and never was about the money in my mind. When America does a gun deal we do it by the millions of firearms.
What if it was just a weapons transfer? What if he really was a agent for an alphabet? What if the deal was to have Paddock buy the weapons legally and then modify them to then have them "stolen" (transferred) to some type of cell (take your pick)?
Which they would then use in a attack. Either they would die with them or leave them. Paddock would become a suspect. But he gets off because the guns were stolen when he was on one of his many gambling trips and he never noticed. Or vice versa ended up reporting them stolen.
What would this mean? Gun control and a tighter security state.
New laws on storing firearms. How many you can purchase at a time. Restrictions on modification of firearms. Restrictions of civil liberty's under the guise of security.
So everything still fits the "modus operandi" even if it wasn't the type of gun deal were used too. In my mind it would be even better to use legal firearms because once the public hears the world "stolen" it becomes harder to curb gun rights of innocent civilians because the majority of the time they can't trace them back to there original owners (filing serial #'s). In my mind if a bad guy can "easily" steal these type of modified weapons from regular Joe down the street that would put more fear into anti-gunners than knowing it was some deep dark back room gun deal that they don't potentially have a voice in the matter over.
Might as well toss in the timing regarding silencers and the Senate and the ambiguous rulings around fully automatics and legal modifications that replicate them.
Again if you can't read or have trouble understanding the basics of reading comprehension that I'm sorry I can't help you there.