There’s a difference between getting a story wrong every once in a while and getting it wrong half the time. Fox News is the least accurate news media source out of all the major news networks and those sites you are quoting and linking are just plain rubbish.
I figured tear gas.Kinda skimmed through it but all I can say is wow. I'm still baffled on why he needed that many guns for one person. I can see maybe 10 or so to swap around but why almost 20. Plus they were just strewn all over the place. And what's with the scuba mask and hose?
I figured tear gas.
The media loves to toss around "arsenal" but in this case...55 weapons and bought over a year. Arsenal.
I have a handful of friends who probably have collections of that size, and many who probably have half of them ARs or AR variants. A lot of them were purchased in the last big election because everyone thought that they would go up in value with a Dem in office, which didn't end up doing anything (but causing a short term bubble). Now they are reluctant to sell them and instead are just holding onto them.I was thinking that too but I don't recall an air tank being recovered. But I guess he can just stick the end out the window or into an area with clean air.
While I'm sure there are many people that own more guns than the shooter you gotta admit 55 should still raise an eyebrow. And the majority of them just AR variants? Don't get me wrong I love guns and have a few myself but I do question his real motive.
Some mental instability. 2 or 3 with plenty of mags would have been plenty to do what he did.I was thinking that too but I don't recall an air tank being recovered. But I guess he can just stick the end out the window or into an area with clean air.
While I'm sure there are many people that own more guns than the shooter you gotta admit 55 should still raise an eyebrow. And the majority of them just AR variants? Don't get me wrong I love guns and have a few myself but I do question his real motive.
I have a handful of friends who probably have collections of that size, and many who probably have half of them ARs or AR variants. A lot of them were purchased in the last big election because everyone thought that they would go up in value with a Dem in office, which didn't end up doing anything (but causing a short term bubble). Now they are reluctant to sell them and instead are just holding onto them.
Not everyone with big collections are bad guys, despite what the media would want us to believe.
Bad guys without guns don't kill people. Bad guys with guns kill people.
Some mental instability. 2 or 3 with plenty of mags would have been plenty to do what he did.
~1050 shell casings found in the room.
Tell that to the people in Oklahoma City (or other cities to numerous to count).
Tell that to the people in Oklahoma City (or other cities to numerous to count).
Yea but who in the hell needs that many guns. Like you said, they for some reason thought Obama was going all the guns away which goes exactly to the point, no normal sane single person needs that many guns.I have a handful of friends who probably have collections of that size, and many who probably have half of them ARs or AR variants. A lot of them were purchased in the last big election because everyone thought that they would go up in value with a Dem in office, which didn't end up doing anything (but causing a short term bubble). Now they are reluctant to sell them and instead are just holding onto them.
Not everyone with big collections are bad guys, despite what the media would want us to believe.
MGM Resorts sues more than 1,000 Las Vegas shooting victims to avoid liability in massacre:
https://www.newsweek.com/mgm-sues-o...ting-victims-avoid-liability-massacre-1027695
MGM Resorts sues more than 1,000 Las Vegas shooting victims to avoid liability in massacre:
https://www.newsweek.com/mgm-sues-o...ting-victims-avoid-liability-massacre-1027695
A casino whose most recent major publicity was being involved in a massive shooting sues the shooting victims?
Lawyer here. It's a badly written article, but I do think MGM is initiating a lawsuit against the victims, it's just that they're seeking a "declaratory judgment". It's a special type of complaint someone can file to clear up a legal issue by saying there's a dispute here, and they want a judge to confirm they owe no money.
But it does mean that people who haven't sued MGM need to hire a lawyer to defend, or else risk getting a default judgment essentially depriving them of the right to sue MGM in the future.
You can't move to dismiss a lawsuit until it's been filed. So they filed one against everyone who hasn't sued them yet. They also got to pick the court that would hear the dispute, which is an advantage that the plaintiff in a lawsuit usually gets.
From reddit:
Interesting discussion thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonio...esorts_sues_more_than_1000_las_vegas/e2jro88/
Yes I figured it was something like that.
However it’s still a screwup publicity and possibly financial, wise on their part in my opinion.
Regardless of the court case, for the next couple of months people going to Vega may very well ask themselves do they want to stay at that casino where those people got shot and then sued by the casino. My guess is a not insignificant number will take their money elsewhere.
- It’s close enough to a suit that it should have been obvious how it would be reported
- It adds a further legal burden (even if its minor) on people who were already victims of a mass shooting
- It shows the casino is more interested in potential losses than the harm done to individuals (I know that describes casinos to a T but still)
- It also ignores the studies that show apologies and empathy generally reduce the instances of lawsuits while this may backfire enormously if the judge rules against the casino as every potential plaintiff will then know they can sue. Plus they’ll be pissed off to begin with.
Yes I figured it was something like that.
However it’s still a screwup publicity and possibly financial, wise on their part in my opinion.
Regardless of the court case, for the next couple of months people going to Vega may very well ask themselves do they want to stay at that casino where those people got shot and then sued by the casino. My guess is a not insignificant number will take their money elsewhere.
- It’s close enough to a suit that it should have been obvious how it would be reported
- It adds a further legal burden (even if its minor) on people who were already victims of a mass shooting
- It shows the casino is more interested in potential losses than the harm done to individuals (I know that describes casinos to a T but still)
- It also ignores the studies that show apologies and empathy generally reduce the instances of lawsuits while this may backfire enormously if the judge rules against the casino as every potential plaintiff will then know they can sue. Plus they’ll be pissed off to begin with.
tbh, I'd feel kinda bad for the casino if they got sued. They did nothing wrong. A crazy dude snuck weapons into their hotel room & used them to carry out a terrorist activity. That's like somebody stealing your car, getting in an accident, and then you getting sued by the person they hit because your asset was used in the event.
If anything, if they really wanted good PR, they should offer all of those 1,000+ victims a free weekend hotel trip with comped food or something. Although if I was shot at from a hotel, I'd probably never want to go near that place again. But maybe push it to a whole week, throw in available therapists, etc., and that would seem like a pretty decent thing for a corporation to do to try to help mend the situation. Sure, it's all corporate baloney, but it'd be better than suing the victims first. Man our country is messed up
Yes I figured it was something like that.
However it’s still a screwup publicity and possibly financial, wise on their part in my opinion.
Regardless of the court case, for the next couple of months people going to Vega may very well ask themselves do they want to stay at that casino where those people got shot and then sued by the casino. My guess is a not insignificant number will take their money elsewhere.
- It’s close enough to a suit that it should have been obvious how it would be reported
- It adds a further legal burden (even if its minor) on people who were already victims of a mass shooting
- It shows the casino is more interested in potential losses than the harm done to individuals (I know that describes casinos to a T but still)
- It also ignores the studies that show apologies and empathy generally reduce the instances of lawsuits while this may backfire enormously if the judge rules against the casino as every potential plaintiff will then know they can sue. Plus they’ll be pissed off to begin with.