I don't think bag screening would benefit their business model.
They are businesses - they are there for profit. They are not a govt. agency

Bag screening at the casinos?  Can't bring "stuff" in anymore.  Dann where do I stay in Vegas now.

I highly doubt this because since the shooter didn't fit the "profile", it will be hard to check everyone's bag especially at 3pm check in.  But you have 2 options:

1) Leave gun in your car (no places to keep law)
2) Check the gun with security and when you leave the casino, you can claim it. (common practice)

Refusal to to any of the above will lead to 1) Being asked to leave or 2) Trespassed (told to leave).  It's still not illegal to carry in a casino even though they have "No guns" signs.

having more snipers and spotters posted around major events would be far more effective than bag and people searches at casino entrances.  if you do searches at hotels, the terrorists will simply find another avenue of attack.   If they're set on the higher grounds, maybe they'll shoot from a billboard or a construction crane.  maybe they'll disassemble the weapons and sneak them in over time at the "secure" hotel.

A sniper with a high powered scope (not the 1.5x reflex sight or whatever cops normally carry) probably would have been the only realistic way of stopping the attack earlier.  They already post snipers at many high profile sporting and other events, guess they didn't have any at this venue?

Perhaps having a swat detail of snipers posted on the strip permanently would be a good idea?  they'd be able to call in when they spot other types of trouble, not only a potential or active shooting in progress.  Maybe expensive, but probably far cheaper than implementing strict security measures at all the hotels.

having more snipers and spotters posted around major events would be far more effective than bag and people searches at casino entrances.  if you do searches at hotels, the terrorists will simply find another avenue of attack.   If they're set on the higher grounds, maybe they'll shoot from a billboard or a construction crane.  maybe they'll disassemble the weapons and sneak them in over time. 

A sniper with a high powered scope (not the 1.5x reflex sight or whatever cops normally carry) probably would have been the only realistic way of stopping the attack earlier.  They already post snipers at many high profile sporting and other events, guess they didn't have any at this venue?

Perhaps having a swat detail of snipers posted on the strip permanently would be a good idea?  they'd be able to call in when they spot other types of trouble, not only a potential or active shooting in progress.  Maybe expensive, but probably far cheaper than implementing strict security measures at all the hotels.

Or more employment for retired vets??? I don't think LEO has the man power or resources.

We're all falling into the same trap the media and average Joe are; trying to find solutions to a problem that doesn't have one.  Deranged people will be deranged and do atrocious things.  Criminals will continue to ignore the laws by definition.

We all know that guns arent the problem, yet they are the easiest scapegoat.  Overreacting and posting snipers everywhere doesnt solve anything.  Look at our post 9/11 bullshit world.  My penis (they didnt forget the balls, either) literally got inspected the last time I went through TSA while travelling with my kid (bring milk for your kid, they touch your dong, makes zero sense).  Even my wife was startled at that one.  I may be packing something down there, but it aint gonna bring down a plane.

I can see the viability in a govt function but in commercial venues the presence of "snipers" wouldn't fit into environment of a commercial show or concert.
Who would pay for these personnel?
With freedom there are risks. We are falling to the echoes of  "there is something we can do". Accept the risks. Empower citizens. 

Unless there is evidence of a specific threat, overreacting with snipers, luggage X-Rays, and so forth is signaling to terrorists they have won.  They want nothing more than to create fear in the public, and snipers at concerts would give them that satisfaction.

As George W. Bush said, the best retaliation for terrorism is to go about our daily lives without fear or paranoia.  The terrorists cannot control us, and any measures in response to an attack gives them validation.

Reacting is pointless.  Memorialize the victims, identify failures in security and plug holes where possible.  Snipers would just make the next person choose another method.

I can see the viability in a govt function but in commercial venues the presence of "snipers" wouldn't fit into environment of a commercial show or concert.
Who would pay for these personnel?
With freedom there are risks. We are falling to the echoes of  "there is something we can do". Accept the risks. Empower citizens.

IDK, either the hotel industry or the state government. 

I'm just saying... they already do this at many other types of events, they just don't talk about it, and it is one type of deterrent that may be able to stop an attack much more quickly than a bunch of cops and security running around on the ground not knowing what's going on.

As I mentioned before, I've seen snipers on rooftops already for public events paid for by the Nevada hotel.

The government may not require the extra security but the insurance companies will. The general liability will pay for all of the lawsuits against MGM (parent company) per contract. I imagine it could be around a billion dollars. At next year's renewal, the insurance company will ask a simple question, how will you prevent this from happening in the future? I know because I was the one that used to ask the question. In fact, I still ask this question every day to different clients. If the response is not adequate, then the insurance company will not renew and MGM will have to get the insurance from someone else for double the premium. The Las Vegas Tourism Board is the closest they have now to the true mafia. If they say what needs to be done, then that's what the casinos have to do or the Board will shut them down one way or another. Somehow the Board has to assure tourists and conventioneers that the City is safe again. As of this week, the Vegas paradigm is broken. I predict that baggage x-ray machines and snipers will be the new paradigm in the desert.

Here is a quote from FaceBook from my cousin's son: "If today you defend the shooter’s violent right to the second amendment, but last week criticized the NFL’s peaceful use of the first, you might be a hypocrite" 

We're all falling into the same trap the media and average Joe are; trying to find solutions to a problem that doesn't have one.  Deranged people will be deranged and do atrocious things.  Criminals will continue to ignore the laws by definition.

We all know that guns arent the problem, yet they are the easiest scapegoat.  Overreacting and posting snipers everywhere doesnt solve anything.

 

Overreacting and posting snipers everywhere doesnt solve anything.

I agree. I think it's a huge waste of money. If you're in the security business and you know a few sniper friends (or people who look like snipers), then head to Vegas and get rich the easy way. Steve Wynn said that if you want to get rich at the casinos, own a casino. Now there's another sure fire way to make money in Vegas. Used to be that a decent looking valet in the 00s could make $70k per year until the recession hit. Now you could make an easy $100k just sitting in a snipers nest staring through binoculars.

Bag screening at the casinos?  Can't bring "stuff" in anymore.  Dann where do I stay in Vegas now.

This place, near downtown, bet they don't care what you bring in.

I agree. I think it's a huge waste of money. If you're in the security business and you know a few sniper friends (or people who look like snipers), then head to Vegas and get rich the easy way. Steve Wynn said that if you want to get rich at the casinos, own a casino. Now there's another sure fire way to make money in Vegas. Used to be that a decent looking valet in the 00s could make $70k per year until the recession hit. Now you could make an easy $100k just sitting in a snipers nest staring through binoculars.

That's ridiculous.
You are suggesting private contractor snipers overlooking U.S. citizens? Imagine the consequences of that. We are not in a war zone. Our country is by all means stable.
This is why this is not the time to offer solutions. Let emotions subside so that we can rationalize decisions. Ban this and ban that. Makes no sense. We've legislated ourselves in a corner where no  law is realistically effective.

Here's an opinion from John Lott. makes sense
https://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2017/10/04/from-my-good-friend-john-lott-jr-the-truth-about-gun-control-and-mass-shootings-in-europe/

This place, near downtown, bet they don't care what you bring in.

No thanks, I've stayed at one of those other cheap hotels in vegas to save money.  Never again.

he never fired auto...

2 ways to look at this.   It was not firing automatic technically and by the governments definition.  However looking at the end result and common definition (working by itself with little or no direct human control) it would be automatic.  Kinda like when people say clip vs magazine.  Technically it's different, but results are the same and we know what they're talking about.

2 ways to look at this.   It was not firing automatic technically and by the governments definition.  However looking at the end result and common definition (working by itself with little or no direct human control) it would be automatic.  Kinda like when people say clip vs magazine.  Technically it's different, but results are the same and we know what they're talking about.

Using the term "auto" plays into the lies, misinformation, and hysteria

It's different

Much like the use of the term "modified" that the media is throwing around
People believe that he made his rifle full auto
What he did was add a modification that is legal in all 50 states

We know the difference and should not use anything other than the correct terminology


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a quote from FaceBook from my cousin's son: "If today you defend the shooter’s violent right to the second amendment, but last week criticized the NFL’s peaceful use of the first, you might be a hypocrite" 

Wish I could post the full discussion I had with a friend of a friend.  We were talking about that CBS lady that got canned.  Went something like this:

My Friend (MF): (statement about his disdain for what the CBS lady said, nothing political or about gun rights)
Friend's Friend (FF):There is a certain hypocrisy in feeling sad for the victims and their families, then not wanting to do anything about it. She is trying to point this out. If you approve of loose gun-rights, this also means that you are accepting the status-quo, and that gun-deaths are an acceptable risk, and it's a risk of something happen to you. This is a logical thought progression. She has pointed out that she has no sympathy for a group of people, who she believes have ACCEPTED that risk.
Me: So people “accepted that risk” by going about their lives? Trying to enjoy a nice weekend? How is that logical? At all...
FF: It's no different to thinking: if you get in a car, you accept the risk of having a crash. You accept it as being practical, because the probability is low.
Me: Roger. So all GOP are for guns, ergo they don't deserve sympathy for being a victim of senseless violence? What about DEM who are for guns? Do they deserve sympathy? Can't have a rational discussion with those to lack logic or are irrational and that's part of the point here.
FF: That is valid. Except, that it never happens. (not getting that he is the one I'm referring to as the illogical and irrational person)

I agree. I think it's a huge waste of money. If you're in the security business and you know a few sniper friends (or people who look like snipers), then head to Vegas and get rich the easy way. Steve Wynn said that if you want to get rich at the casinos, own a casino. Now there's another sure fire way to make money in Vegas. Used to be that a decent looking valet in the 00s could make $70k per year until the recession hit. Now you could make an easy $100k just sitting in a snipers nest staring through binoculars.

Speaking of illogical. . .

People who look like snipers?  And who would that be? 

Using the term "auto" plays into the lies, misinformation, and hysteria

It's different

Much like the use of the term "modified" that the media is throwing around
People believe that he made his rifle full auto
What he did was add a modification that is legal in all 50 states

We know the difference and should not use anything other than the correct terminology


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does make me cringe everytime I hear the "experts" talk about the guns here.  Well, I am not certain of all the facts, there's a big difference in the terminology here and for those who understand it may not be a big deal.  However, for the millions who don't know the difference, that kind of misuse of terminology does nothing but spread fear.  Just like the term "assault weapon".