Las Vegas Massacre

[Gregg]

I have no problem believing Paddock could have set up his sniper's nest as is being reported. These rifles are not heavy as compared to traditional sporting rifles, and they are easily broken down to fit in suitcases. Over three days it would have been no problem to make several trips to and from his car without arousing suspicion. Likewise, because of their size when broken down, keeping them hidden from housekeeping would have been no big trick.

As far as the hotel/casino watching people, they do. But they watch you in the casino while you are trying to win their money. The really couldn't give a tinker's damn what you do in the hotel unless someone complains. The Golden Rule in Las Vegas is very simple. If something encourages or facilitates gambling, then it is permitted. If something discourages or inhibits gambling, then it is not permitted. Everything else is irrelevant.

As far as setting up the weapons for the assault, that would take little time. And the last thing he would do would be to knock out the windows. It's a big hotel. Even then, it was only about 11 minutes until a security guard found him and, apparently, drew his attention away from the concert crowd. I say this because he quit shooting out the window and put approximately 200 rounds into the hallway.

So, not a hard thing to do. I've never smuggled guns into a hotel, but I have seen people smuggle a lot of contraband into a hotel without drawing attention to themselves. And this guy, a high roller in his 60s, wouldn't draw much attention unless he was dragging a piece of artillery behind him.

Good post.

[baldgriff]

Okay. 1) Your picture doesn't make your case at all. Although you can technically hunt with a .22 (or a BB gun), a .22 is not a traditional hunting rifle, which is specifically what I referred to in my post. 2) What you said was that he could laid down as much metal with any semi-auto rifle. I countered with traditional hunting rifles, which have small magazines. Traditional hunting rifles don't take 20/30 round mags, so far as I know. If you know of some, please share. 3) I'm aware of the numbers mentioned in the article you cited, which was a good read. See the last couple of paragraphs of my post.

Please don't ignore the fact that the definition of "assault rifle" you posted from wiki the other day said the term was made up by various sources including the firearm industry. We can argue all day whether it is a technically accurate term, but it is the term which is generally accepted and it has more than a kernal of truth, sort of like "Obamacare". What frustrates gun nuts is that assault rifle is a term with high emotional impact. This is a propaganda strategy the right monopolized up until now in the gun control debate. See, inter alia, "cold dead fingers", "guns don't kill people", "jack-booted thugs", etc.

So I look up what you may likely consider a "traditional" hunting rifle.... a BROWNING BAR SAFARI IN .338 WIN. (BOSS)

bar-safari-boss_4.jpg

When looking at the Browning site there is a "traditional" 4 shot magazine. The production of the BAR series I believe started about 40 or 50 years ago.

You can also purchase a 10 shot magazine. I have to do more looking to find 20 shot, but I wouldnt be surprised if they are out there. The point is that this "traditional" hunting gun is able to shoot very quickly and accurately.

Here is the guns description from the Browning Site:

BROWNING BAR SAFARI IN .338 WIN. (BOSS)
Chambered for some heavy-hitting, long-range calibers, including the .270 WSM, 7mm Rem. 7mm WSM, .300 Win. Mag,. .338 Win. Mag., Browning's BAR Safari models are a long-standing favorite of big-game AR hunters. The Safari, some would say, is not only Browning's best BAR, but among the world's premier gas-operated autoloaders. The Safari features an engraved, forged steel receiver and a genuine walnut stock and forearm with a diamond pattern cut checkering. All metal is highly polished and deep luster blued, and the wood has a beautiful high gloss finish.

Advantages: Many say the Safari shoots as accurately as Browning's ultra-accurate A Bolt and X Bolt rifles. The Safari's BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System) enhances accuracy and reduces recoil by a third. At 8.6 pounds and 45 inches long (including its 24-inch barrel), the Safari in .338 Win. is not only knock-down lethal for big game hunting, but fast enough for targeting varmints in a fast-shooting environment.
MSRP: $1,500

[Fresno Bob]

why would you try to take this guy alive, every second he's putting more rounds into into the crowd. the second the door is breached, you put as many rounds into him as your gun holds

[baldgriff]

I

I will confess that if you gave me a choice of .22's in the picture when I was 12, I would have taken the one that looks military because it is so cool. Today I take the hunting rifle looking .22.

And both are equally capable of the same damage. This is my point.

[Ken]

I don't want to start a conversation down the rabbit hole of conspiracy, but I am curious about whether anyone more familiar with how Vegas works has insights in how this guy set up shop undetected, and was able to operate for so long before being found and confronted. My limited experiences in Vegas suggest that the hotel is always watching you. There are cameras everywhere, security monitoring everyone--so how was he able to transport and set up all these weapons undetected? I'm amazed that this guy--a Vegas regular and known high end gambler, was not being monitored and that no flags were raised during his activities. And my understanding is that the windows he broke would have raised alarms as well. In hindsight, so many things could have tripped up his plans and ended up saving lots of people.

I don't travel much so maybe this is normal for everyone else but I noticed something new on this trip. When we checked in @ the Paris hotel, they offered us $10 per night NOT to do housekeeping. I happily took it. I'd never heard of that option and $30 free on a comp room was nice.

I wonder if Mandalay does the same thing? If so then the room would have gone unchecked for his stay, like mine was...

Is this a new option? Has anyone heard of it? I'm sure it will go away now...

[Sour Masher]

I don't travel much so maybe this is normal for everyone else but I noticed something new on this trip. When we checked in @ the Paris hotel, they offered us $10 per night NOT to do housekeeping. I happily took it. I'd never heard of that option and $30 free on a comp room was nice.

I wonder if Mandalay does the same thing? If so then the room would have gone unchecked for his stay, like mine was...

Is this a new option? Has anyone heard of it? I'm sure it will go away now...

I've seen the option to not take room service, but I haven't seen it incentivized like that--I'm with you, I'd have taken that free money too. If this guy had that option and took it, that would explain a lot.

[Sour Masher]

I'm pleasantly surprised the NRA is willing to finally give a nano-meter on the issue of regulation and concede bump-stocks should be regulated in some way. While I'm sure this is, at least partially, a strategic concession meant to appease and deflect from other possible legislation, I'm still pleasantly surprised they have shown the smallest modicum of common sense and reasonableness in the face of the use of a device that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of gun owners, see no good use for outside of mass murder.

I'm happy about it, because it seems like nothing can ever get done on this issue unless the NRA approves of it, and so I am hopeful this will mean bump stocks will be banned. I also think it is a wise strategic retreat for them, and despite my cynicism for their motives, I can't help but be pleased and impressed that I've lived to see a statement like this from the NRA:

WASHINGTON — In its first public statement since the deadliest shooting in modern American history, the National Rifle Association on Thursday called for new regulations on bump stocks that rapidly accelerate a weapons' rate of fire.

"The National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law," the NRA's CEO, Wayne LaPierre, and its chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, said in a statement.

"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations," the statement continued.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/la...stocks-n808121

[Redbirds Fan]

So I look up what you may likely consider a "traditional" hunting rifle.... a BROWNING BAR SAFARI IN .338 WIN. (BOSS)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1013[/ATTACH]

When looking at the Browning site there is a "traditional" 4 shot magazine. The production of the BAR series I believe started about 40 or 50 years ago.

You can also purchase a 10 shot magazine. I have to do more looking to find 20 shot, but I wouldnt be surprised if they are out there. The point is that this "traditional" hunting gun is able to shoot very quickly and accurately.

Here is the guns description from the Browning Site:

BROWNING BAR SAFARI IN .338 WIN. (BOSS)
Chambered for some heavy-hitting, long-range calibers, including the .270 WSM, 7mm Rem. 7mm WSM, .300 Win. Mag,. .338 Win. Mag., Browning's BAR Safari models are a long-standing favorite of big-game AR hunters. The Safari, some would say, is not only Browning's best BAR, but among the world's premier gas-operated autoloaders. The Safari features an engraved, forged steel receiver and a genuine walnut stock and forearm with a diamond pattern cut checkering. All metal is highly polished and deep luster blued, and the wood has a beautiful high gloss finish.

Advantages: Many say the Safari shoots as accurately as Browning's ultra-accurate A Bolt and X Bolt rifles. The Safari's BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System) enhances accuracy and reduces recoil by a third. At 8.6 pounds and 45 inches long (including its 24-inch barrel), the Safari in .338 Win. is not only knock-down lethal for big game hunting, but fast enough for targeting varmints in a fast-shooting environment.
MSRP: $1,500

That is exactly what I would call a traditional hunting rifle, and it's a helluva gun. I've never seen a BAR with a 10-round mag. I'm guessing that is a relatively new option, a result of market demand. Almost sacrilege for a Browning fan like me.

EDIT: As best I can tell from a little research, Browning didn't offer the BAR with an enhanced ammo capacity until this year; they now have one model with a 10-round box. I think you could get something jury-rigged by after market suppliers before now. (This all is not to be confused with the original Browning BAR used by the military in WWII, which was chambered mostly in 30.06 and had larger magazines, but bears no resemblances to the hunting rifles of today.)

[dslaw]

I'm pleasantly surprised the NRA is willing to finally give a nano-meter

This was the same thing I thought when I heard it yesterday. My biggest complaint against the NRA was that they always seemed to frame any type of control as taking away the 2nd amendment. This is the first time I can remember them saying anything like this. Hopefully it is the start of something good.

[baldgriff]

Im glad that they are doing it also. In this case you are not taking the gun away, you are taking away something that may significantly increase the rate of fire above that of its intended design.

[B-Fly]

MGM Resorts International, in a public goodwill be damned move, preemptively sued more than 1,000 victims of the Las Vegas massacre, apparently in an effort shop for the judge/court they believe would be most sympathetic to their denial of liability for security/safety negligence.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mgm-resorts-international-sues-more-than-1000-victims-from-las-vegas-mass-shooting-denying-any-liability/ar-AAAbjsV?ocid=ientp

[Sour Masher]

MGM Resorts International, in a public goodwill be damned move, preemptively sued more than 1,000 victims of the Las Vegas massacre, apparently in an effort shop for the judge/court they believe would be most sympathetic to their denial of liability for security/safety negligence.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mgm...jsV?ocid=ientp

Can someone explain to me the legal logistics of this? Is it that by suing the victims first, they get to pick the judge and court? If so, how does that work? I wasn't aware that plaintiffs get to dictate such terms.

As to motive--you can't get a worse look than this. Huge hit to them and their brand, but I guess they did the math and calculated this hit would be less than a potential payout to all those people if they win a big settlement.

[umjewman]

Can someone explain to me the legal logistics of this? Is it that by suing the victims first, they get to pick the judge and court? If so, how does that work? I wasn't aware that plaintiffs get to dictate such terms.

As to motive--you can't get a worse look than this. Huge hit to them and their brand, but I guess they did the math and calculated this hit would be less than a potential payout to all those people if they win a big settlement.

There are legal requirements for jurisdiction so you can't necessarily choose anywhere, but we see it all the time in New York litigation. The Bronx tends to be far more favorable to injured plaintiffs so plaintiffs love finding a connection to the Bronx that allows them to file suit there.

[Sam]

Can someone explain to me the legal logistics of this? Is it that by suing the victims first, they get to pick the judge and court? If so, how does that work? I wasn't aware that plaintiffs get to dictate such terms.

As to motive--you can't get a worse look than this. Huge hit to them and their brand, but I guess they did the math and calculated this hit would be less than a potential payout to all those people if they win a big settlement.

I think what they're trying to do is prove that they aren't liable due to the resources they used that would fall under the Department of Homeland Security's Safety Act (which was introduced after 9/11). Many of the major sports stadiums and venues have been certified under the Safety Act which extends liability protection to any company that uses “anti-terrorism” technology or services that can “help prevent and respond to mass violence.” Their argument will be that the security company used for the concert itself, CSC, is certified by DHS so in turn, their liability should be protected. What they're really seeking is a judge to agree, determine they are protected, and determine that future lawsuits against them aren't viable. Not a good public look by any means but it wouldn't surprise me if they work out a monetary deal with victims in order to "protect the brand" and reduce future, drawn out lawsuits and litigation.