SHOOTING at Mandalay festival
Quote: AxelWolfShouldn't have had" If someone has a Million dollars should they be able to get a Million dollars in credit to gamble with?
I think what I am trying to say is that if MGM had warning signs that this guy had a severe gambling problem to the point where he knowingly decided to take it out on people I could see the casino being held potentially liable.
If MGM gave him that particular room (gave = comped) and MGM knew that there were guns in the room, MGM I think would be held liable. Mandalay Bay has its own policy where weapons are not allowed on Mandalay Bay so if any employee knew that there were arms in the room they could be held liable for turning a blind eye to their own policy (though not illegal). We are talking civil liability, not criminal, especially if a report of weapons in the room went somewhere in the management chain.
Quote: MB Security policyWeapons of any type (guns, knives, nightsticks, mace, pepper spray, stun guns etc.) are strictly prohibited on Mandalay Bay property. Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies may carry weapons on Mandalay Bay property in the performance of their official duties. These agencies must contact Mandalay Bay Security Management prior to arriving on property.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm wondering if they will no longer allow people to decline maid service and even disregard do not disturb signs.
I don't know how long the guy stayed there, but in the State of Pennsylvania, there is a law that says while a person may decline housekeeping service, hotel staff is REQUIRED to enter a guest's room at least once every three days.
That's a state law, and I actually had a friend once get kicked out of a hotel because, even though he had his Do Not Disturb sign out, hotel staff entered the room (as required) and found evidence of him smoking in a non-smoking room.
With that said, Pennsylvania law also says this:
(4) Any person who the innkeeperreasonably believes is bringing into the lodging establishment property which may be dangerous to other persons, such as explosives or illegal firearms.
You will note the word, "Illegal," in that law. That means if the person has no reason (i.e. reasonably) to believe that the weapons are illegal, then the person has no duty to report the weapons.
While Ohio has no such three day law, the law in terms of mandatory reporting is somewhat similar. Hotel staff (anyone, really) is required to report any time they reasonably believe a Felony to be taking place. However, the possession of weapons, regardless of how many, does not necessarily point to a Felony. That being the case, if hotel staff did have police check out a guest due to possession of weapons in the room, then the guest could actually sue the hotel if all of the weapons were in there legally.
There are certain establishments in various states, such as bars (in Ohio, at least) in which it is illegal to possess a firearm. That could be reported immediately, but not so much hotels unless someone actually believes a felony is taking place.
Thus, even if maid service could not be declined...depending on other state laws...there may be nothing that legally merits reporting.
Quote: monet0412I don't know what Casino in Vegas you go to but it has been clear for many years, decades even that they want volume. They want a million ploppies with low bankrolls playing 15% losers. They don't want 10 players with million dollar bankrolls playing beatable games or close to beatable games.
Casinos' icing are the high rollers, the ones flown in, playing Baccarat or Blackjack for $xxx thousand a hand. You can see it on the gaming reports. The ploppies are the engine but it is really the high rollers that bring in the bonuses.
Quote: boymimboMB Security Policy
Weapons of any type (guns, knives, nightsticks, mace, pepper spray, stun guns etc.) are strictly prohibited on Mandalay Bay property. Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies may carry weapons on Mandalay Bay property in the performance of their official duties. These agencies must contact Mandalay Bay Security Management prior to arriving on property.
That's both a laughable and completely unenforceable policy. The police and other law enforcement agencies are under absolutely no obligation to contact Mandalay Bay prior to arriving on property with weapons provided there is a law enforcement related reason for being there. I hate to joke about it, but Sunday night, do you think the SWAT team provided MB with a list of how many officers would be reporting to the scene, their names, descriptions and how many weapons they would be carrying?
"There's an assault on the crowd of civilians, we've got to get this guy!"
"I hope we don't need to hold too long this time before speaking to the manager, do you know I was on hold for twenty minutes last time we needed to enforce the law?"
Quote: WizardIt is always convenient to have a living person or entity to blame for everything, isn't it?
Unfortunately for litigation MGM will undoubtably get sued. Money will be lost if:
(a) MGM shows that it broke its own policy by knowingly allowing arms in their rooms. This can be simple as a housekeeper reporting seeing the weapons, a manager reporting it, or anything like that.
(b) MGM knowingly comped and extended credit to a person who they knew could be dangerous. I can see the host's email being searched (if he had one), conversations with the check-in staff, and discussions with credit.
That will be interesting.
Quote: Mission146I just want to know what your angle or Massi's angle is. That he may have had a gambling problem? He could have had a gambling problem with or without a comped suite, we know he had access to substantial casino credit at multiple places.
Massi works for foxnews
foxnews is against gun control
Massi's job is to deflect the conservation to blaming the Mandalay Bay so you wont think about gun control
NokTang fell for it. LOL
Quote:foxnews is against gun control
Why are you against sensible gambling control? It is undeniable that all of this would have been prevented if casinos were banned. Can we at least compromise and require mental health exams before allowing someone to gamble?
Isn't this a fun game?
Quote: Mission146
That's both a laughable and completely unenforceable policy. The police and other law enforcement agencies are under absolutely no obligation to contact Mandalay Bay prior to arriving on property with weapons provided there is a law enforcement related reason for being there. I hate to joke about it, but Sunday night, do you think the SWAT team provided MB with a list of how many officers would be reporting to the scene, their names, descriptions and how many weapons they would be carrying?
That wasn't my point. My point is there is a policy. That means that employees who know the policy and the company may be held civilly liable and negligent for ignoring their own policy.
AKA: Housekeeper -- I saw guns in the room and told my manager.
Manager -- I did nothing.
I don't think it's right that MB or MGM be held civilly responsible either. They didn't break any Nevada laws, and the only thing the casino could have done is trespass him.
That sounds made up. (-;Quote: Mission146
I actually had a friend once get kicked out of a hotel because, even though he had his Do Not Disturb sign out, hotel staff entered the room (as required) and found evidence of him smoking in a non-smoking room.
Quote: FleaStiffWhat about a man who lives in rural Maryland and his barn contains a fully functioning military weapon capable of taking out Albuquerque, New Mexico? Would you worry then? In fact, he was an explosives expert and federal contractor who put his skills to use in the Middle East, not in the USA.
Yes.
Quote: SkepticWhy are you against sensible gambling control? It is undeniable that all of this would have been prevented if casinos were banned. Can we at least compromise and require mental health exams before allowing someone to gamble?
Isn't this a fun game?
We have very tight casino control already because they can and do have an adverse effect on the population.
Also, casinos do not have the sole function of serving as stages for killing people. So it would be idiotic to regulate them on that basis.
You probably knew that already. I'd hope so at least.
This, like the post with the policy, is a complete joke. So this guy (who had a plan to kill a bunch of people) DIDN'T TELL MB that he was bringing guns up to his room. Holy hell who woulda thunk it? I would also find it exceedingly unlikely that the guy even ALLOWED maids in to his room. I put up the do not disturb sign and I'm just an AP. This guy had an arsenal and an evil plan... but yeah, I better get that turn down service since all of my GUNS are on the bed... Are you kidding me??? Laughable is only one of many words that could describe this...Quote: boymimboUnfortunately for litigation MGM will undoubtably get sued. Money will be lost if:
(a) MGM shows that it broke its own policy by knowingly allowing arms in their rooms. This can be simple as a housekeeper reporting seeing the weapons, a manager reporting it, or anything like that.
How on Earth do you think they could have known he was dangerous? From the MB's perspective he's a whale... They send him offers (like me - and I'm not a whale). They send him free play (like me - and I'm not a whale). They send him free/comped rooms (like me - and I'm not a whale) and from this they're supposed to draw some conclusion that he could POTENTIALLY be hatching a plan to kill dozens and injure hundreds more?Quote: boymimbo(b) MGM knowingly comped and extended credit to a person who they knew could be dangerous. I can see the host's email being searched (if he had one), conversations with the check-in staff, and discussions with credit.
That will be interesting.
IF, and that's a big IF... the guy had some history of being violent or something then maybe you'd have something to even discuss (but only if he was even violent to the point of actual assault/etc). Hell, if I ran a casino and some guy was dumping me millions he could shout/swear at the cards/machines all he wanted so long as he didn't touch anyone, break anything, or insult my personnel. If he gave me enough money, I might even give him an older machine to beat with a baseball bat... What the hell do I care. This shows ZERO SIGNS of a mass murderer and it's laughable to think they should have been able to "see this coming" based off of his GAMBLING history.
You're reaching hilariously deep, with absolutely zero facts, to try to blame a corporate entity for just doing what they do with millions of people on a day to day basis just because one guy went psycho... and yeah, I don't like casinos, but come on...
Today they donate 2x the price of your order to victims and their families.
Quote: SkepticCasinos aren't nearly as tightly controlled as guns are. Guns do not have the sole function of serving as stages for killing people either.
I figure you're trolling but just in case. You try to get permission to open a casino and I'll try to legally obtain a gun. First to finish wins.
Obviously guns are tools for killing. Those guns were for killing people quickly and in great numbers. They enabled him to do so. The fact that it was a casino played little to no roll.
You: Hey the drunk driver had fuzzy dice. Why regulate drunk driving instead of fuzzy dice?
Quote: AxelWolfI'm wondering if they will no longer allow people to decline maid service and even disregard do not disturb signs.
I wear ear plugs when I sleep in Vegas. Hopefully the maids won't mind walking in on my naked ass passed out in bed.
Quote: RigondeauxI figure you're trolling but just in case. You try to get permission to open a casino and I'll try to legally obtain a gun. First to finish wins.
You just won every debate ever in my book. Henceforward, nothing is a debate unless you declare it so.
It was in the same report that he checked in on the 28th, and that the room was a 2 room suite. Both of those things were later verified, so I'm guessing it was someone with MB.
Quote: boymimboThat wasn't my point. My point is there is a policy. That means that employees who know the policy and the company may be held civilly liable and negligent for ignoring their own policy.
AKA: Housekeeper -- I saw guns in the room and told my manager.
Manager -- I did nothing.
I don't think it's right that MB or MGM be held civilly responsible either. They didn't break any Nevada laws, and the only thing the casino could have done is trespass him.
I know that wasn’t your point, just found the pointless policy amusing. Like the cops are actually going to call and clear entering the building with weapons.
I also do not believe they should be held liable, of course.
Quote:You try to get permission to open a casino and I'll try to legally obtain a gun. First to finish wins.
Apples/oranges but I'll play. It's much easier to open a video poker establishment (casino) than it is to obtain an FFL dealers license. Exponentially easier.
Let me know the next time you have to fill out ATF paperwork, pay an extra fee and sit out a waiting period in order to enter a casino to gamble. Hell, knowing these fools someone will propose suggest that soon.
Quote:Obviously guns are tools for killing.
Explain that to the US Olympic shooting team how they exist to kill people. Are hunters murderers? I own the same guns he did and use them for very practical purposes. Am I just waiting to kill people?
P.S. Admins, this site is unusable now. Please change ISP's or go to a decent CDN.
By report, staff honored his "do not disturb" sign, so no employee entered his room during his stay.
The one question in my mind is "How could he smuggle all those guns in without detection?"
Obviously the fiend did not hand carry guns in to the MB: they were concealed, probably disassembled and hidden in his luggage.
Perhaps he hid long rifles in one of those long bags you can get to protect suits.
No, unless there is proof that an MGM employee knew he had guns, told mgt., and mgt. did nothing, there should be no liability.
Of course this is America, where anyone can be sued for anything.
He's something absurd: this happened at about the time OJ was being released from prison.
Quote: SkepticApples/oranges but I'll play. It's much easier to open a video poker establishment (casino) than it is to obtain an FFL dealers license. Exponentially easier.
Let me know the next time you have to fill out ATF paperwork, pay an extra fee and sit out a waiting period in order to enter a casino to gamble. Hell, knowing these fools someone will propose suggest that soon.
Explain that to the US Olympic shooting team how they exist to kill people. Are hunters murderers? I own the same guns he did and use them for very practical purposes. Am I just waiting to kill people?
P.S. Admins, this site is unusable now. Please change ISP's or go to a decent CDN.
You said casinos, not gambling.
Anyway, gambling is completely illegal in most places, save the lotto or something like that. There are no casinos in all of texas. In many states you have to go to Indian land or international waters. You can't bet on sports anywhere except nevada, and a place or 2 that has state run parlay cards.
As to your second point, just because people have hot dog eating contests where they puke after doesn't mean food isn't made mostly for nutrition or at least consumption.
Just because you have a rare car that you don't drive doesn't mean cars aren't transportation machines. Just because you collect coins...
Guns are for killing. Some are designed for killing people. Some If you have some as a hobby it doesn't change that. Nor does it mean you are a killer.
It's virtually impossible that you don't know all of this. Maybe you just like making perverse arguments. There are good ones available.
Quote: SkepticI'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy. It is undeniable that if casinos were illegal the shooting Sunday night would not have happened. That's the same innane argument being used for more gun control laws when everything the guy did was already illegal.
If casinos were illegal they would stop having hotel rooms facing concert venues?
Reasons? In his mind it could be Chairman Mao.
I don't think we will ever know the details absent a note or lots of data from the GF who was sent out of town on a fool's errand.
It was a long acquisition process so brain tumor is probably out.
Gambling? He might just as well have had any hobby and people would be making absurd statements about it.
Quote: SkepticI'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy. It is undeniable that if casinos were illegal the shooting Sunday night would not have happened. That's the same innane argument being used for more gun control laws when everything the guy did was already illegal.
Most immigrants coming in won't commit mass terrorism even from the designated banned countries, but I see little reluctance to the, "we can't take any chances" from some and just agree to ban entire countries.
Funny that. But we have to be more reasonable when it comes to guns.
Bah humbug.
Interesting article about the guy who was staying in the room directly below the shooter. He was in his room as it happened.
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy. It is undeniable that if casinos were illegal the shooting Sunday night would not have happened. That's the same innane argument being used for more gun control laws when everything the guy did was already illegal.
Quote: Mission146If casinos were illegal they would stop having hotel rooms facing concert venues?
Yeah. It's not hypocritical at all. I don't even really follow how this is supposed to meet the definition of hypocrisy.
His ability to obtain those guns was a necessary condition for the crime. So some people are debating how and if that condition can or should be blocked.
There being a casino is a mostly irrelevant detail. That particular crime on that particular night wouldn't have happened if country music was illegal, if it was illegal to travel to Vegas, if everybody named Stephen had been rounded up and put in a camp... But none of those things would have a reliable impact on mass shootings in general.
Again, if some isolated DUI manslaughter involved a guy with fuzzy dice in his mirror, it wouldn't be hypocritical to consider laws about alcohol rather than laws about fuzzy dice.
Of course, it wouldn't follow that any or all changes to alcohol law would be effective, but it would be a pertinent issue.
Texting while driving has led to a high percentage of distracted driver accidents. So now it's mostly illegal.
Driving while not using a seat belt led to more severe injuries and higher death rate. Now illegal.
Paint with lead in it is now illegal.
Phosphates in laundry soap are now illegal.
Planes had whatever interior materials they liked. People died from flammable or toxic materials. Now both are banned.
All of these and many more proved to be a problem whose solution was legislation or prohibition. Is everyone happy about it? No; each involves some loss of freedom, choice, effectiveness, makes something more costly, other results. But in each case, there was an obvious pattern that needed to be interrupted at the most basic level.
The pattern is clear. In virtually every mass shooting we've had, the perpetrator(s) had multiple and/or semi-automatic weapons. Lots of ammo. Kits upgrading their efficiency.
These are things that can and should be regulated.
Not common are mental state, age, place, a hundred other factors specific to one or more events. Closest patterns other than firearms are workplaces and schools, and other public venues...places where people gather for some reason that may or may not figure into the perpetrator's script.
So the casino argument is specious. Yes, in this particular case, they may conclude he had a grudge against Vegas, MGM, country music, the world. But the place to break the chain is in the common factor, the firearms.
From what I have read SO FAR, I tend to agree with this. It could have happened anywhere he decided.Quote: WizardThe Mandalay bears no fault in all of this either way.
Quote: beachbumbabsBut the place to break the chain is in the common factor, the firearms.
What if he'd used a home-brewed bomb ala Oklahoma City?
Do we outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel?
What if he figured out some way to insert a live power wire into a packed swimming pool: do we outlaw electricity?
A poor carpenter blames his tools.
It's worth repeating: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/25828-vegas-gunman-may-have-been-plotting-to-strike-another-vegas-music-festival-a-week-earlier
To me, that is far too much of a simplification and naive. Full automatic and psuedo automatic weapons make it too easy for a deranged person to kill too many people.Quote: MrVIt's worth repeating: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
Surely there must be some reasonable common ground on this.
Quote: MrVWhat if he'd used a home-brewed bomb ala Oklahoma City?
Do we outlaw fertilizer and diesel fuel?
What if he figured out some way to insert a live power wire into a packed swimming pool: do we outlaw electricity?
A poor carpenter blames his tools.
It's worth repeating: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
Why are hand grenades illegal?
Quote: JohnnyQTo me, that is far too much of a simplification and naive. Full automatic and psuedo automatic weapons make it too easy for a deranged person to kill too many people.
Surely there must be some reasonable common ground on this.
Sure, send someone up to the same hotel room with what the average individual would consider adequate for self-defense. Hand gun, and rifle or maybe substitute a shotgun and maybe several reloads of ammunition. Consider the difference in the damage they could do?
It's no contest. What we allow is without question is more a menace to society than anyone's benefit. And some people think the current situation is just dandy.
Quote: MrVIt's worth repeating: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
Australia banned guns
No mass shooting since the ban
The ban saved lives
Here in the USA, we are waiting for the next mass shooting
Quote: ams288The Sheriff just said in a press conference that the shooter fired over 200 shots into the hallway at a security guard. Hadn't heard that yet.
I just heard that also
Incredible violence. He was determined.
I cant believe Swat still had to bust in
200 shots, I expect no door left
Quote: rxwine
It's no contest.
That's what I like about you. Given long enough, we always finally come to an agreement ;)
But seriously, I try (when I can resist impassioned rhetoric) to give an honest explanation for my stance. Not even to change a mind, but to give understanding. If I could, I'd like for an Anti to attempt to help me understand them.
110,000,000 Americans (1/3rd) own 340,000,000 guns. It's 1.12 guns for each person here. There's always this pervading sense that we overflow with them, and it's often the butt of our UK cousin's jokes. The media frenzies about it, and some of our anti's do as well. "Their only purpose is killing people" and "No one needs mil-spec" and on and on. So much emotion and such sensationalism, it almost makes me (and sometimes does make me) feel a boor, like a caveman suddenly finding himself at the country club, and wishing he could slink back off into the woods.
Does anyone know the number of Americans killed by these rifles per year? Not even these complicated, scary, "assault" rifles, but by ALL rifles?
~300. I didn't miss a zero. It's three hundred.
Can someone explain why THIS causes such unrestrained passion, whereas worse societal ailments that cause so much more death and pain don't even seem to register?
Quote: FaceThat's what I like about you. Given long enough, we always finally come to an agreement ;)
But seriously, I try (when I can resist impassioned rhetoric) to give an honest explanation for my stance. Not even to change a mind, but to give understanding. If I could, I'd like for an Anti to attempt to help me understand them.
110,000,000 Americans (1/3rd) own 340,000,000 guns. It's 1.12 guns for each person here. There's always this pervading sense that we overflow with them, and it's often the butt of our UK cousin's jokes. The media frenzies about it, and some of our anti's do as well. "Their only purpose is killing people" and "No one needs mil-spec" and on and on. So much emotion and such sensationalism, it almost makes me (and sometimes does make me) feel a boor, like a caveman suddenly finding himself at the country club, and wishing he could slink back off into the woods.
Does anyone know the number of Americans killed by these rifles per year? Not even these complicated, scary, "assault" rifles, but by ALL rifles?
~300. I didn't miss a zero. It's three hundred.
Can someone explain why THIS causes such unrestrained passion, whereas worse societal ailments that cause so much more death and pain don't even seem to register?
I will take a shot at this
1st, really appreciate sharing your expertise. I learn more about guns from you then anybody else. You were the 1st to call bump stock. Impressive.
No way I want to argue with you.
Just insight into my passion about this
To me its a no-brainer because a ban will not affect me at all
I'm not a gun owner.
So of course I am for anything that doesn't affect my life in any way but I think will save lives.
You are a gun owner, I understand you feel different
Quote: terapinedI will take a shot at this
1st, really appreciate sharing your expertise. I learn more about guns from you then anybody else. You were the 1st to call bump stock. Impressive.
No way I want to argue with you.
Just insight into my passion about this
To me its a no-brainer because a ban will not affect me at all
I'm not a gun owner.
So of course I am for anything that doesn't affect my life in any way but I think will save lives.
You are a gun owner, I understand you feel different
I can think of lots of things that wouldn't affect me by being banned, that would save lives, yet I'd oppose. For example, a ban on fast food. And the existing ban on many hard drugs. (I actually eat fast food sometimes and have done hard drugs, but wouldn't really miss either).
Since we have an explicit constitutional right to bear arms, I think totally ignoring that would hurt non-gun owners because it would speed the erosion of our civil liberties.
I do agree, that I love Face's takes on these and other things.
Quote: RigondeauxI can think of lots of things that wouldn't affect me by being banned, that would save lives, yet I'd oppose. For example, a ban on fast food. And the existing ban on many hard drugs. (I actually eat fast food sometimes and have done hard drugs, but wouldn't really miss either).
Since we have an explicit constitutional right to bear arms, I think totally ignoring that would hurt non-gun owners because it would speed the erosion of our civil liberties.
I do agree, that I love Face's takes on these and other things.
Can I kill someone else with the fast food that I may eat?
Also, the Constitution blows. It’s antiquated, irrelevant and is now applied in a context that didn’t exist when it was written.
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Martin Niemoller, possibly
Quote: Mission146Can I kill someone else with the fast food that I may eat?
Also, the Constitution blows. It’s antiquated, irrelevant and is now applied in a context that didn’t exist when it was written.
Our constitution has served us very well, thank you.
It is a bedrock foundation upon which our system of government and liberties have evolved.
Hey, if in fact you have a better idea for a constitution, let's hear it!
Quote: FaceThat's what I like about you. Given long enough, we always finally come to an agreement ;)
But seriously, I try (when I can resist impassioned rhetoric) to give an honest explanation for my stance. Not even to change a mind, but to give understanding. If I could, I'd like for an Anti to attempt to help me understand them.
Does anyone know the number of Americans killed by these rifles per year? Not even these complicated, scary, "assault" rifles, but by ALL rifles?
~300. I didn't miss a zero. It's three hundred.
Can someone explain why THIS causes such unrestrained passion, whereas worse societal ailments that cause so much more death and pain don't even seem to register?
Misleading:
2014 stats
2014: total number of murder victims 11,961.
Total firearms: 8,124
Handguns: 5,562
Rifles: 248
Shotguns: 262
Other guns: 93
Not stated: 1,959
Not stated can include any one of the other rifle types. It's the horrific-ness of the murder that is the issue, Face. High-powered rifles used for mass murders of innocents that only happen once in a while, like Sandy Hook, Orlando and other murders.
Only 30% of adults own a gun. 29% of those owners own 5 or more guns. Source. There are 245 million adults in the United States, so 73.5 million give or take own guns +/- 2.8%
Quote: terapinedAustralia banned guns
No mass shooting since the ban
The ban saved lives
Here in the USA, we are waiting for the next mass shooting
(NSFW Language)
