How the fuck is Mandalay Bay or MGM Resorts responsible for firearm companies and the shops that sold the disturbed fuck those weapons?


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/mg...ement.html

Sympathy may be the reason, I don't know. But more likely the republican voting resort chain who owns the hotel casino calculated that paying out would not make them bankrupt, maintain a "humanitarian response" but still side with firearm corporations because they are businesses.

For the families suing the Hotel was an easier target, but they are not ultimately responsible, the firearm makers and shops that sold the sicko his weapons are responsible.

Evidently MGM wasn't paranoid enough.

(October 4, 2019 at 5:08 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Evidently MGM wasn't paranoid enough.

I get why the victims sued them from a pragmatic standpoint, because suing the firearm makers, because of GOP laws passed in the 90s made holding them responsible impossible.

It simply makes no logical sense knowing any  hotel, bar, mall, movie theater, restaurant, any business in this current climate could be a victim of a mass shooter.

It makes more sense to me, rather than blame ANY business who does not sell firearms, to hold the companies that make them, and the shops that sell them responsible.

---

I think the argument might have been that the video does show the killer going in and out multiple times bringing his high volume of firearms up with him.

But that is still fucking bullshit to me having stayed in hotels myself. I am a heavy smoker so I am in and out all hours of the day.

The security of the hotel was inadequate, that's the rub.

(October 4, 2019 at 5:27 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The security of the hotel was inadequate, that's the rub.

That is fucked up. There are countless businesses of all kinds that only have  front door, back door and maybe side fire escapes. Is every business, in America supposed to have armed security guards and metal detectors like an airport?

I go to dollar stores, to grocery stores, department stores, bars, ect ect ect. 

I get why airports and government buildings have more security, but everyday life should not have to arm themselves like a prison. 

This is nothing more than the GOP protecting one industry's profits and making the innocent pay for the greed of firearm makers.

You haven't been in many courtrooms, have you? I've been an interested observer in countless insurance battles. I had this taped to the inside of my briefcase:

"Military justice is to justice as military music is to music."

Insurance litigation was just more so.

(October 4, 2019 at 5:42 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: You haven't been in many courtrooms, have you? I've been an interested observer in countless insurance battles. I had this taped to the inside of my briefcase:

"Military justice is to justice as military music is to music."

Insurance litigation was just more so.

Look, I get that those who sued did what their lawyers thought would pay off. Not the point. It did pay off.

I am talking about the morality of blaming a business that does not sell firearms for what a disturbed person did with the firearms and the companies and shops that sold him the firearms.

Even today, a bar, in many locations in America can be sued and held responsible for selling a drunk too much liquor and they go off and kill someone on the road.

Arguing current law isn't my argument. Arguing the moral state of our current laws is. 

The hotel should not be held responsible for the greed of the firearm makers or shops that sold the sicko the firearms. 

Otherwise every business in the world would be liable for not being armed like military base.

Sue-happy nonsense.

The law isn't concerned with morality.

(October 4, 2019 at 5:59 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: Sue-happy nonsense.

Bullshit.

The Hotel did not make the guns, the hotel did not sell the guns.

But the factories and shops DID.

Takata made defective air bags, and is being held responsible. Even the  vaping industry is being RIGHTFULLY persed for it's bad products.

You give me one good fucking reason why firearm companies should not be held to the same oversight as any other product sold?