Repeal the Second Amendment and permit our lawmakers to enact common-sense laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
Eliminate all semiautomatic firearms, and the number of firearms deaths in this country will be one-tenth of what it presently is: ~33,000 per year or 93 per day. That's one-tenth of the victims, one-tenth of the premature burials, one-tenth of the police and legal resources expended, and one-tenth of traumatized family members.
5
"permit our lawmakers to enact common-sense laws regulating the ownership, possession, and use of firearms."
Oops. Have you noticed our "lawmakers" attitudes lately?
4
How about the victims' lawyers cut their fees substantially to show their solidarity with the victims?
“The drawbacks and reasons that might make it incompatible is that those not eligible under our protocols would be shut out.”
And, there's the rub: the people with really clear, easy claims will want to reduce expenses (i.e. other people's expenses), and the lawyers / people with lesser claims will not want their pool of potential assets reduced. The mere possibility of obtaining million dollar recoveries from the hotel and their insurance carriers will bring out a hundred claims. And some of those people will object to moving assets into a pool from which they will not recover.
1
We already know that the security guard employed by Mandalay Bay was not licensed, as required by Nevada law. Which other security standards that might have minimized or prevented this act did they violate or ignore?
We also know that Las Vegas and the gaming industry is a cesspool of back scratching and outright corruption. The lawyer handling this should have no connection to Las Vegas and the gaming/hospitality industry whatsoever.
2
I have a theory, after reading murder mysteries since my teen years, that this was a well-disguised hit. I wonder if forensic accountants have examined his cash flow overseas and each and every murdered soul's life from beginning to end to see if there were any overlaps. Call me wacky, but I think there was a motive, this wasn't random insanity.
3
Please get real. The local attorneys who end up representing Paddock's "estate" will end up the winners with the lion's share of whatever money is left. What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.
How about the "bumpstock" manufacturer being liable as well as our lawmakers and the NRA who supported this device.
4
The court should assign a trustee to administer the estate and distribute the proceeds to the victims. Un-reimbursed medical bills should be first in line, then support for the most severely injured and disabled by the shooter. It's hard on a family to lose a loved especially if the loved one was a provider. But it is also very hard on families who have a provider who can no longer work and requires continued medical care. Having the estate eaten up by lawsuits helps no one.
The Second Amendment was written into the constitution to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. It's not about gun collecting, target shooting or hunting. Nearly all countries today deny or severely restrict gun ownership by civilians. Austrailia, Japan, Russia and North Korea. The governed are at the mercy of the government.
If you want to restrict or eliminate the Second Amendment, the only fair way would be to amend the constitution. It will take a long time. It will take a lot of political courage. And, may well be impossible with a 24 hour news cycle and social media. Before you single sentence solutionizers go full apoplectic, consider the shoulders of the free men you stand on, today.
Slavery, the right of women to vote, presidential term limits and prohibition were all dealt with by constitutional amendments. Someone decided the long way was the only way. An argument was made, political will was shaped and grown until the amendment passed.
Until then, I will continue to enjoy and expand my freedom under the Second Amendment. If you're worried about what some people do with their guns, maybe you should get one, also. Learn to use it. Be prepared. After all, DJT is President. That alone scares the Bejesus out of most of you.
I’m starting to believe that the shooter perpetrated this act just to prove to our President that he can’t “protect us” and that we need to consider gun control. I know it seems far-fetched, but it’s as good a theory as any. If he did it for this reason and had left a note, the power of the act would have been diminished in regards to the pro-gun lobby and NRA members.
It’s still madness though and, if correct, failed miserably. Congress won’t even debate making bump stocks illegal. Instead, they legalize silencers. Sigh.
I hope that the victims of this crime get every penny of the shooter’s money. There is no sense litigating who is at fault. We all know who did it. Trouble is, I’m sure that the lawyer for the estate stands to gain more by going to court than by distributing cash. He will probably fight tooth and nail.
1
Sue the complicit NRA and gun manufacturers.
17
He gambled away ALL his Money. That's the main reason for his evil, insane plot. A loser, deciding to go out with a Big Bang, and take many, many victims with him. He's probably deeply in debt, also.
Just saying.
3
I'm sadly pretty sure some will feel that the NRA should be his beneficiary.
2
Mandalay Bay is on the hook for the big money....they have insurance for illegal acts, committed by a guest, on their premises....so their checkbook is already being warmed up.
1
A question for those better informed than I: In other cases of mass shootings where there are significant donations received for victim funds, how much or what percentage of the money goes to lawyers? The lawyers should not work for free, but neither should they become rich from money intended to help others.
5
"The lawyers should not work for free, but neither should they become rich from money intended to help others."
There are many who can afford to donate their skills as a charitable act and in this case, should.
"Eric Paddock said that he had told investigators that his brother became bothered that the gambling industry was no longer lavishing him with the same perks he had become accustomed to, and that he had complained to him about this.
does the new york times really want people to believe that this a source of his rampage ?
1
Got another explanation?
1
"does the new york times really want people to believe that this a source of his rampage?"
Seems like The New York Times was merely covering the story. Does Trump object or something?
1
This massacre shows the cost of rapid fire guns to society, that the offenders never pay. Wrongful death typically costs 5 - 8 M$ when a liable party with "deep enough" pockets exists to pay it. Major injuries like gunshot wounds often cost 1 M$, and if the victim is left seriously disabled requiring lifetime care can end up costing far more than death, particularly if they are young.
So add it up: 58 * 5 million, (500 - 58) * 1 million = 732 million $
Think about that. An angry man who wants to die and hates somebody or something ... but it's apparently so obscure what it was that nobody can tell us right now ... cost the living about 3/4s of a billion dollars.
And this is just a small fraction of "the price of freedom" in 2017.
I do not feel the need to own a semi-automatic weapon with detachable magazines; that would not not make be "free" in any way. But suppose I did, and suppose I felt responsible enough to voluntarily seek insurance capable of covering this kind of tort costs, were I to go crazy enough to do this thing, or something like it?
What would such insurance cost? What insurer would offer it? How would they estimate risk; what factors would go into that?
Now why do gun hobbyists insist that the innocent victims up these gun massacres pay their "price of freedom?" And if that is the way it is going to be, why don't we have "heroes of freedom" day every year, why aren't the survivors granted Veteran's Health Care for life?
8
" suppose I felt responsible enough to voluntarily seek insurance capable of covering this kind of tort costs,"
Well since lawmakers seem to ardently support the right to bear arms (and the politically powerful NRA), why don't they at least impose a mandatory insurance law for gun ownership the same as liability insurance is required of car owners?
1
All the money and law suits in the world will never ease the pain of this tragedy nor compensate for all of the lives caught in this and other deadly shootings. The focus should be on the root causes….the NRA , gun manufacturers and our government. The NRA and gun manufacturers are the ones that should be sued and held liable for promoting, distributing and selling weapons that can kill hundreds in a matter of seconds/minutes. The government needs to be held at a higher degree of accountability because of their inaction regarding stricter gun controls and blessing the ground the NRA and gun manufacturers walk on.
Sandy hook, Orlando Florida, Virginia Tech Campus, other mass shooting in addition to the gun violence in this country and the NRA, gun manufacturers and government still refuse to act on strict gun controls.
6
"government still refuse to act on strict gun controls."
Perhaps their constituents need to make their expectations loud and clear, or vote them out if they refuse to listen
What a bizarre story. The money doesn't matter to the dead and the living seem pretty petty for even asking. Besides, Eric Paddock suspects the money is already gone. I happen to agree with him. Stephen Paddock did not prepare a will but that doesn't mean he failed to plan for the disbursal of funds in the event of his death. Chances are the public will never know where the money went.
1
" the living seem pretty petty for even asking."
Hmmm. Petty? l ardently hope you never find yourself in one of their positions. I imagine that if you're the victim of a car wreck, you'll decline any financial assistance for any expenses or losses incurred too, right? And if minor dependents lose you, well tsk, huh?
Although I would prefer a world without weapons, I would settle for a fee on guns and bullets to establish a superfund to compensate all victims of gun violence.
8
I can think of two really awful people who got their start in the Real Estate Industry. Stephan Paddock is one of them.
Paddock killed 58 people and injured more than 500. The other person I have in mind, will do far more damage - although, in a less direct manner. But, it is very unlikely, that we will ever see the very large estate of "bad guy number 2" split up and handed out to his victims, who may be far too numerous to count.
6
With the group swarm of lawyers involved in this case let’s just guess where nearly all settlement monies will go.
2
Sure he's " rich ". Just like Trump is a Billionaire. As in no way.
Seriously.
3
Sad , so much damage , loss, and pain , and not enough money for so many victims . The families and victims should sue the NRA for damages and pain since its their propaganda that keeps semiautomatic weapons available for just about anyone to get. Between them and the gun manufacturers who make these particular weapons available , that should cover medical costs for those who have been maimed and unable to work.
2
I only wish the Leadership in the US was this generous, to the injured.
2
No doubt this was a terrible crime, but we do have laws around other things as well, e.g., how to handle the estate of someone who has died. I don't see how there is any legal way to just give this guy's money away unless the heirs (the article says the mother would be the beneficiary if there is no will) decide to give it away. Or maybe with a lawsuit, although I understand how that works either and this article does very little to explain it. But in my opinion, this guy's family has every right to his money. They didn't do anything wrong.
1
maryjane, I think you raise a good point. The thinking behind most of the comments and opinions is along the lines of, how should this situation be engineered to bring about an outcome we like, but there is the question of who has a right to the money. That said, I can't believe that there is "no precedent" for this kind of question (even if some aspects of the case are unprecedented). A commits some wrongful act against B. A dies. What legal claim does B have for restitution against A's estate? (Presumably one element would be whether A swindled money out of B, which is not the case here.) Just because the heirs didn't do anything wrong, it doesn't follow that they are entitled to all the money. If somebody dies owing money to someone for work done on their roof, the estate is still liable for that, no?
I'm put off by the subheadline that the perp's family supports the idea of giving his estate to the victims. They have no choice: tort claims against the estate would empty it, leaving the heirs nothing anyway.
To some extent, contagion drives mass killings like it drives suicide clusters. This story is exactly what the media should be doing--focusing on the aftermath and the pain suffered by the victims and the perp's family and friends. We must seize every opportunity to cause these perps to think, for a moment, of what follows their moment of perverted glory.
An excise tax on weapons and ammo, earmarked to support the victims of gun violence, is an excellent idea. Maybe extend the tax to violent video games and violent movies. Perhaps we need special Medicaid coverage for victims of gun violence. It is unthinkable that the victims are going to be left medically indigent and untreated--on top of the trauma of being shot.
4
They might be saying more than that: in theory, some of hus money might be in joint-title "pay on death" accounts (or the real estate equivalent, JTWROS) and the law might transfer title to the heirs without it being subject to creditors claims.
Terrible idea! That would just encourage more victims and families to oppose gun control laws and support the Second Amendment, for personal gain.
1
There are three things we can count on with mass shootings:
1. They will continue, becoming part of our society.
2. Congress will do nothing to regulate gun ownership.
3. These will be paydays for lawyers, regardless of where any payouts come from.
4
And what's the liability of the NRA and the rest if the gun lobby and manufacturers? Zilch.
All these millions coming out of someone's pockets, but not touching those truly responsible for this and other tragedies.
The beat goes on.
3
"what's the liability of the NRA and the rest if the gun lobby and manufacturers? Zilch."
I'm adamantly appalled by the horrors gun ownership has caused in this country, as well as the power wielded by the NRA, however it seems like holding the NRA and manufacturers liable would be like holding car manufacturers responsible for drivers mistakes.
Questions that need to be answered before millions of dollars start flying around:
1. Where is the video footage showing Paddock in the hotel?
2. Where is the footage of Paddock shooting the security guard? And of the damage to the hotel hallway from the shots that missed the guard?
3. Why did the guard travel to Mexico shortly after the shooting?
4. Why is a long gun laying across Paddock's legs if he shot himself?
2
Why would you think that video is required to prove someone guilty of a crime and why should an innocent person's travel be questioned or inhibited? There could be several explanations re the long gun. It seems pretty certain that an accurate one was applied.
1
Lawyers will be sure to financially benefit no matter what the outcome. Go after the gun industry - the purveyors of death and destruction caused by their hideous assault weapons which no one but the police and military should posess.
3
I hope the money is used to bring about CHANGE in gun control.
The money should be offered to those who survived and willing to lobby for gun control laws and policies.
The money should be allocated to establish an organization
with a mission to:
Help victims of gun shooting
Lobby for gun control policies
Get pro bono lawyers, accountants, and business people to establish it as a socially responsible organization or non profit. A good model to follow is ACLU.
Victims are best suited to lead and work for this organization since they most probably will drive it with passion due to their pain.
The 5 million should be used to drive change and help victims reestablish their life!
3
"I hope the money is used to bring about CHANGE in gun control"
I hope the money, every penny, is given to the victims to be used as they decide.
Why not donate all to a charity or organization that promotes stricter gun control laws where it can help prevent future mass murders?
1
The shooter's wealth is chump change compared to the money available from the casino where the shooting took place. Consider their unwillingness to call law enforcement immediately when notified by employees and attempted to solve the problem themselves, which is SOP in Nevada where they want to keep the press away from any negative activity.
3
Ironically, his entire fortune would not be enough to cover even a minute fraction of the uninsured/underinsured injury costs.
4
To those suggesting pro bono work or law school volunteers: law school professors, while certainly knowledgeable, have in many cases either been only professors (i.e., working in the scholarly field rather than the real one) for the most recent stretch of time, or are so famous they could only take on one case rather than the whole gamut of cases being brought up. Law school students are no replacement for lawyers with recent experience. Furthermore, pro bono work in the law field is usually done to boost visibility and to add a veneer of charitable good will to firms and practices. Most lawyers want to get paid, especially for cases that aren't cut and dry and will eat into their billing hours. And before anyone says that's inhumane, nobody asks for police officers or doctors or surgeons to donate their time (how about asking those hospitals to cancel the medical bills?). The problem is people want justice, but this is a situation where justice can't be found. Pollock died and can't go to prison; his money, if it's left, wouldn't be nearly enough to cover damages. And nobody other than Pollock will want to take responsibility. It's a sort of brilliant exposure of the ridiculous Las Vegas culture.
3
A lot of comments here about getting rid of guns; let's examine that idea.
Mass shootings were rare before 1982, but started to grow at that point. The rate has tripled since 2011. Guns have always been readily available in the United States, so the premise that gun availability is at the root of the problem seems very weak. Guns may not even be a necessary tool, given the recent invention of "crowd mowing" by ultra-violent truck driving terrorists.
The one thing that has changed since 1982 is an increase in real time, or near real-time, video coverage, followed by endless on-the-air rehashing of the event.
Every time the press slathered one of these events across the media (both TV and web), some other maniac "comes out of the woodwork" to show everyone that he can "do better".
If it is appropriate to discuss gun control, which is a violation of the 2nd amendment, we should also be discussing media control, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Not to mention fashion control - the perpetrators always seem to be dressed in either cameo or "tactical" clothing - lets talk about banning that form of freedom of expression as well.
Actually, everything should be put on the table and discussed - I'm sure the same people who have no problem stepping on the 2nd amendment, will be just as happy to step on the 1st amendment - right?
And let's even discuss increasing the availability of mental health services, which is probably a vital part of any solution to the problem.
3
Peter Zenger wrote: "Actually, everything should be put on the table and discussed - I'm sure the same people who have no problem stepping on the 2nd amendment, will be just as happy to step on the 1st amendment - right?"
The constitution puts every Amendment on the table. We can repeal any and all Amendments because the constitution says so. I personally support repealing the 2nd Amendment. Its repeal is constitutional, it is common sense, it is what the American people want, and it is what our country needs.
Once the 2nd Amendment is repealed, we no longer have silly arguments that the constitution permits someone to own a semiautomatic firearm. After the repeal, if our lawmakers deem certain firearms unacceptably dangerous, they will be banned.
"If it is appropriate to discuss gun control, which is a violation of the 2nd amendment,"
I'm sure that there's many gun owners out there who would love to see it, BUT wow, since when was it a "violation" of ANY amendment to be discussed? That, along with the examples in the rest of your post, are thankfully covered by the 1st amendment.
1
"lawyers for some of Mr. Paddock’s victims, who want to make sure the money is not depleted by legal expenses" When I saw that statement it reminded of some of Dicken's novels where the lawyers spent years in court fighting about estates until there was no money left to distribute.
2
Giving his money to the victims family’s would be the right move, however in the USA the attorneys will end up with the lion share of the wealth. Unfortunately this is our culture.
1
If a town has only one lawyer, that attorney probably has a second, more plebeian job to help make ends meet. If a second lawyer moves to town, almost immediately there is more work than the two of them can handle.
Prediction: By the time the hundreds of attorneys involved for the nearly 600 victims and their families pocket their cut of the action, those actually wronged will be lucky to receive enough to pay for a Happy Meal at McDonald's. In Republican circles, this is known as "The Trickle-down Theory."
5
Toss the estate whole into the victim's fund.
Then address the real problem - the sheer amount needed in the fund to pay for the damage wreaked by one man and a lot of ammunition. Tax guns and ammo with a high enough tax to pay out damages for rampages. Gun ownership should be like cars - with registration fees and insurance to cover normal risks. And a sales tax to fund the abnormal risks like mass shootings.
No one should suffer financially from being shot while manufacturers and sales organizations profit.
25
$5 million divided by 558 (the number of dead and injured) is a tad under $9000 each, not millions. Even given that a formula might award more to those who were killed or more badly injured, no one is going to get much from the shooter's estate alone. All of those lawyers filing suits and climbing each other's backs in order to take charge of the process will also expect to be paid, no matter which one of them moves to protect the money from himself and his ilk.
42
Socrates and others in the Readers Picks have proposed an excise tax on guns and bullets to help defray the costs of gun-related injuries and deaths, an excellent idea that maybe the NRA would not object to.
Benedict Trump and the Republiscum in Congress took great pleasure in depriving over ten million human Americans of meaningful access to health care.
Over 33,000 Americans killed by guns every year, and who knows how many are "just" injured. We can probably safely assume that a great many of these casualties don't or won't have health insurance and that very few would have the means to pay for their treatments. Especially in the event of a mass casualty, this must put a tremendous strain on the finances of hospitals and other facilities. It would be good if the proceeds of an excise tax fund could be divided between the costs to the victims themselves and also towards their medical bills. Repeal of the Corker Kickback and/or of the carried interest exemptions would certainly help.
82
"...an excise tax on guns and bullets to help defray the costs of gun-related injuries and deaths, an excellent idea that maybe the NRA would not object to."
I mean no offense, Ed, but you really don't know very much about the NRA and the positions it takes. For starters, simply not objecting to such an excise tax would be akin to admitting that firearms and ammunition have inherent culpability in deaths/injuries caused by them. The NRA has a history of, and will always in the future, never go down that path.
Hi, Grey Wolf,
I do realize that my wish is rather pollyanna-ish, given that the NRA's stated position, e.g., that the fact that somebody is considered too dangerous to be allowed onto an airplane is not a good reason to keep him from buying as many guns and as much ammunition as he wants, with no tracking. But maybe at some point the wimps in Congress would do something more substantial than "thoughts and prayers" - I think I had better pray that no one expects me to actually do anything.
I would not be surprised if he did not set out to show everyone how smart he was. He could run run up a count, far and away more than anyone else. Why walk around with a cheap pistol, when, with proper planning, you could show every lesser person to be the pikers they were.
Most people could have come up with this kind of plan. It was his evilness that paved his way. I don't know how you could stop someone like this. If he didn't have 30 assault rifles, he would have found another way.
4
But he did have 30 assault rifles. The meer fact that he could legally gain access to so many weapons and go unnoticed is at the core of this debate.
1
Except they pretty much never do, do they? They use the best guns they can get.
Could we please, please, stop with the, "Well, if you don't let a guy check into a hotel with 30 sturmgeweher and about a gazillion rounds of ammo, he'll just find a firebreathing dragon," logic?
1
"Will his wealth go to the victims?"
It should. His girlfriend should also pay over the $100,000 he wired to her in the Philippines. The payment was part of his premeditated plan to slaughter innocents.
31
Of course, the lawyers will eat up the whole estate trying to decide how to give it away.
22
The lawyers are proposing this plan to avoid extensive court and legal fees.
That was mentioned in the story.
The article states that the victims’ lawyers are asking the court to put the money into an estate to distribute the money to the victims to avoid litigation and the accompanying legal fees.
If there were litigation, yes, the attorneys would expect to be paid for their time and effort. I’m not sure why people don’t understand that people (lawyers, investigators, paralegals, couriers, and all the other professionals who work to put together a lawsuit) want to get paid for their services. Litigation is expensive because it is time consuming and labor intensive. Consider how much your hospital bill would be if your doctor was working on your case alone for 100 hours, and you didn’t have insurance to cover any of your costs.
Or, of course, some attorneys could step forward and do the work...for free!
According to our modern evangelicals and their prosperity Gospel, this Paddock fellow must have been very pious and blessed to be so well off.
71
Find a quote of an Evangelical praising this man for his wealth, or keep your ill-informed nastiness to yourself.
19
Praising this particular individual? Or promoting the Prosperity Gospel by televangelists to the gullible? "Send us (tax deductible, tax exempt) faith offerings and good things will happen to you."
1
Actually if you google it you'll find some examples. You'll also find that evangelicals support Trump (a bigot) and Moore (a pederast). Evangelicals have no moral high ground and you have no cause for being offended. Evangelicals should be seriously thinking about their deeds on earth since at this rate almost none of them will be enjoying the kingdom of heaven.
2
One would think that any decent lawyers would volunteer their services. Pro bono.
33
Why should any highly skilled lawyer donate the hours this settlement will entail? This will require estate law experience, criminal law experience, and so forth. Why should they not be paid? In fact, a case this complex with so many victims probably requires a large law firm with several divisions of law covered. This is not a case for small firm litigants.
1
America is commercial - see health care for example.
Hey! Us lawyers have to make a living too, you know? And pay off some hefty college loans.
1
Can I ask perhaps a stupid question?... Why is it we saw the video of the recent subway bomber attempting to blow himself up within hours of the crime? Yet we have yet to see video of this guy even checking into the hotel? He murdered 58 people and injured over 500. I'm no fan of Alex Jones but I find it troubling. Las Vegas has more security cameras than any place in the world. I pose no theories. I would just love an honest explanation.
PS: Give the money to the victims.
39
"Las Vegas has more security cameras than any place in the world. I pose no theories. I would just love an honest explanation. "
Vast security in the casinos to catch cheaters--a revenue loss to them. Not in the hotels which is what you are looking for. There is not a revenue gain for them so why would they have more cameras than hotels in other parts of the country. You are pulling one set of facts and trying to apply it to one particular circumstance and draw some completely illogical conclusion--someone like Alex Jones. Look broader and apply grounded logic.
FBI and law enforcement notoriously secretive about evidence.
1
Don't you think that would be rewarding the action? At least some of the people who commit these kinds of crimes crave the notoriety. I think depriving him of the video and (perhaps even making him anonymous) would be a better approach. We don't need the video IMO.
What good will a million dollars be to the 58 people he killed?
8
It would help the spouses & children they were taken from.
money damages are at the very heart of americanism.
Why doesn't a law school step up and provide pro bono student work under the guidance of a professor?
41
@mikelew: Student work is supposed to be beneficial to the students in some way. Doing work of a type they are unlikely ever to do again will not benefit the students at all. Given that many of them are paying over $40,000/year just for tuition (crazy but true), they cannot afford a huge time sink into a project where they neither learn nor earn.
3
One reason is that law schools don't provide any practical training so the students wouldn't have a clue what to do.
Brother Eric seems to be getting a pass. Same as the fleeing girlfriend, the mass murderer purchased homes for his inner circle. What other assets got liquidated and ended up with them? Government does home seizures if drugs are involved in any way, why are these people allowed to keep their killer's gifted cash and property?
11
So he had rental property where individuals paid him rent which went into his warchest. By your logic, they would be accomplices. How do you not see the difference between drug cash (proceeds from illegal venture) and legal revenue of an individual before he committed any crime? Not to condone any action of the shooter, but did you really want to rewrite literally hundreds of codes which could have far reaching effect just to accommodate this event?
Ought not Paddock's next of kin get his money? Or the NRA?
2
There must be an equitable solution that doesn't benefit the lawyers over the victims and their families. If we could do it for 9/11, we can do it here. I'm afraid, though -- given recent legislative developments -- that this Congress' solution would be to mandate that the shooter's estate go to the NRA, on the theory that if all the people at that fateful concert were armed, fewer -- or none -- would have died. Arm the shooters, in other words, and let the benefits trickle down.
13
I thought an investigation is ongoing. Peace to the families and surviving victims.
1
"Investigation" ?
A man went berserk in a country whose berserk right-wing leaders values guns much more than people.
Case closed.
There's no peace in that story, brother.
95
And left wing politicians value getting themselves re-elected more than the lives of their constituents. See VA healthcare, Amtrak, inner city schools, public housing, etc.
2
Your reply is merely deflective and reactionary, without even addressing or acknowledging the truth Socrates was trying to point out.
The company which makes the bump stock is far richer. They need to be the target of the victims.
53
The NRA should pay money to the everyone at that concert too.
115
Announce a contest to devise the best plan to distribute the proceeds of his estate to the victims, both living and dead. Along with simplified applications and forms that can be filled out by laymen, family and survivors. Also have Congress pass a law that lawyers fees may not exceed $500 per claimant.
Pay the creator of best plan a prize of $5,000.
8
Why haven't we heard more about the investigation of this case and why is everything still so secretive? To this day there hasn't been a single frame of Mandalay Bay security footage showing him lugging 20-odd rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition through the casino lobby.
I'm not advancing any specific conspiracy theory, but this shooting investigation is weirdly paradoxical. On one hand, we know there was a lone gunman and he's dead, but on the other, the post-shooting investigation has been completely hush-hush. Why? There's no fugitive accomplices, no reason the FBI couldn't provide detailed progress reports.
Everything we know about Paddock and the shooting we knew in about the first 72 hours and since then nothing. Who gets his money is almost irrelevant, other than the fact that having $5 million in assets only makes his motives even less understandable.
37
He put his luggage in the elevator from the garage. He wasn't waving guns around in the lobby.
13
Let's not overlook the adjusted timeline provided later by the police. I believe the initial reports had the police " getting organized" for an hour in the hallway outside the shooters room. Also I believe, much like the horrible mass shooting at the gay club in Florida, the police did not storm the shooter until the firing ceased. TV portrays heroism differently, but those bullets cause no harm.
1
This is Vegas. They have cameras everywhere.
We don't know exactly how many or what kinds of guns he used. WHy all the secrecy?
1
The probate court should easily find competent counsel to perform the legal services pro bono so that the funds need not be depleted by legal fees. Too many Americans confuse portrayals of lawyers by Hollywood and TV with real lawyers practicing all over America. Many real life lawyers in the pertinent jurisdiction and with the proper credentials will be pleased to serve.
24
@lhc: It's true that many lawyers would love to perform more public service. But how many of them could afford to give the hundreds of hours this will involve? And how could it be structured in a way that would allow many lawyers to donate small amounts of time they could afford to lose while maintaining necessary continuity?
1
It's all a terrible tragedy.
I am though perplexed about this constant demand to be compensated by someone even if you voluntarily went to the concert.
The concert organizers, hotels or for that matter those attending the concert - in their worst nightmares - would not have imagined a tragedy like this.
How can you hold someone then responsible for a tragedy like This?
Perhaps, we in America should really be asking when do compensations start and who is really responsible.
In this case, the gunman alone should be responsible.
The others from whom compensation is demanded - I hate to say - is just more ambulance chasing.
20
In this case, it is not a tragedy. It is the result of deliberate actions taken by the perpetrator, Paddock, which are not unforeseeable any more. Whether anyone was legally responsible for not doing more to prevent this mass shooting is a question I would like to see answered. Maybe no one else besides Paddock is legally responsible. But I don't know, and I would like to know. It seems mass shootings happen often enough that we ought to know.
By voluntarily going to a concert, does a person assume he risk of being shot? Some of these victims cannot pay their bills. Some are severely injured, some have lost the family breadwinner. Should they risk becoming homeless, or having their electricity cut off? They have obligations to their families and loved ones, and should do whatever they can to continue the best they can, after what happened.
It could be that the concert venue and the hotel didn't meet their obligations to keep their patrons safe. If they didn't do what they were supposed to do, then there is nothing disreputable about holding them to account.
15
Neil, the liability law is pretty clear on who is responsible - those who are negligent. It is pretty clear to me that an industry which creates guns and accessories that are specifically designed to kill other human beings are, in part, responsible when those things are used for the exact purpose for which they are marketed and sold. In short, the gun industry is morally responsible but Federal law shields them from financial responsibility. It is quite a mind boggling situation.
3
No one would argue this tragic event is horrifying and sickening. Myself included. But I have to agree with Neil - there are risks of dying everyday, everywhere you go. And death is a part of life. If someone commits a crime then yes, hold them accountable. But to file lawsuits against the hotel and venues seems ridiculous. Our country’s lawsuit mentality is out of control. This is life, people. We don’t have Star Wars force field technology yet. We can’t prevent everything. It’s a scary fact of life. You can’t control every situation. What you can control is mentally ill people from getting guns and tackle the root of the problem.
It is very unlikely that the relatively modest fortune Paddock accumulated will be even vaguely enough to compensate the families of the 58 people he killed and the 546 people he injured.
At best, his family is seeking to make a gesture that might create some distance between themselves and their evil relative.
17
The true question is whether Slide Fire Solutions, the maker of the bump stock used by Mr. Paddock, will contribute to the victim's fund. Mr. Paddock used their bump stock product, as it was intended by their instructions, to increase the rate of fire from his firearms. This contributed significantly to the killing of 58 people, injured 546 people, mentally maimed countless bystanders in Vegas, and scarred a nation's collective psyche.
Unfortunately, we have twisted laws in America that shields the manufacturers of weapons from almost all liability in the use of their product. No other production industry has this favor: e.g. medical device companies, automakers, the food & beverage industry, jet manufacturers, etc. There is a sordid feeling attached this indemnity, as gun's core purpose is the act of killing.
Clearly Stephen Paddock's estate must be split between the survivors, but more importantly the weapons producers have a moral and ethical stake in this malicious use of their product.
174
A small price to pay for Paddock's endorsement and publicity. Best thing for business since a Black Democratic President!
6
Is there a non-malicious use of a product meant to maximize killing?
The company that manufactures this "product" should be sued and bares full responsibility for it's intended use of maximizing death.
1
nickwatters - it was that President's ATF that approved the bump stock.
Remarkable that we live in a country in which the hotel can be sued, but the bump stock manufacturers cannot.
262
Anyone can be sued. I personally don't think it's the hotel's fault that one of their guests was a murderer. As for the bump stocks, they were designed to be a gimmick for firing ranges, and they were approved for sale. The fact that they're still legal is a failure of political will.
12
We still don't know the motive. But apparently, Paddock felt he had a medical condition that would make him unfit to fly. Why else would he let his medical certificate lapse if he liked to fly? I wonder what that medical condition was? Knowing this might tell us a lot about his potential state of mind. You can't get a medical certificate for flying if you have any one of a number of health problems, from diabetes, heart disease, to hearing loss, emotional problems, and substance abuse, among others. Having such a problem is not a good reason to go crazy with guns, but such problems are common in older Americans (Paddock was in his mid-60s). This is just one more reminder that we all need to take care of ourselves. Medical problems can have serious consequences.
7
Dan -- I'm a FAA certified flight instructor and commercial pilot, and I am telling you that this idea is barking up the wrong tree. First of all, if he had been diagnosed with anything serious by anybody, the investigators would know about it now. But then on the other side:
* a relatively recent FAA ruling extends the rights of a class III medical (all an owner of a private aircraft with only a private pilot's license, not permitted to fly for hire, needs) 10 years from issuance, provided the pilot obtains annual physician statements
* when was the last time he flew? Yes, he had been a pilot, there's no evidence I see that he was flying or legally current (had biennial flight review within the last 2 years ... and to be current 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days)
Yes, medical problems "can have serious consequences" ... for pilots or anybody. But medical problems, including something that is going to kill you, is no excuse for mass murder ... and I'm not aware of any medical condition that turns people murderous.
In these extraordinary cases I really think the Federal and State governments should step in and compensate these families and victims much like what happened after 9/11.
8
No, I am sorry. Taxpayers should not be responsible for victim compensation.
Shooters and gun manufacturers should be.
Taxpayers are already paying for clean up, body bags and the whole investigation.
118
9/11 resulted in a lot of flailing around by the government to attempt to quiet the effort to sue the Saudis. The taxpayer giveaway was without precedent and remains without following with the possible exception of some of the payments that came about as a result of Katrina. There is no need to extend that Bush doctrine any further. Some losses will always be uncompensated. There is no rational thought involved in the decision to make the taxpayers the insurer of last resort.
14
Why should the taxpayers be liable for this? I know the craven congress passed laws shielding the gun manufacturers from any liability. This is where the buck should pass -- to the corporations amassing huge profits from guns and weapons, not the innocent victims, their families and the taxpayers, over 90% of whom favor stricter gun control laws.
1
What the victims of gun murders and injuries really deserve - aside from useless prayers - and aside from comprehensive gun law reform that would shrink the insane 300 million number of guns on the American streets - is a gun victims tax on the sale and resale of all guns and bullets AND a gun liability insurance mandate for all gun-owners to help compensate gun violence victims and families for the massive carnage that guns cause.
It's a reasonable idea - we do the same for houses, cars, boats and other items - one I'm sure the Guns Over People caucus finds morally objectionable as 90 Americans continue to drop dead every single day of the year from gun 'free-dumb'.
Tax and insure the guns and the bullets.
Such a simple idea and partial solution to America's gun insanity.
...as the crazy GOP-NRA gun nuts object and mindlessly scream "freedom!"
What a disgraceful bunch of fake Americans.
245
"...houses, cars, boats and other items...", are not constitutionally protected. You have listed privileges. By your logic, anyone speaking publicly would have to be bonded, in the event that speech were to cause a riot. BLM would not support that.
And, crazy thought this may be, what if someone did not renew their gun insurance and went on a killing spree? Kind of like a drunk driver with no liability. Whacha gonna do? Face it, better minds than yours have not cracked this nut.
Another point you may wish to consider. None of these mass shooters are members of the NRA, nor the Tea Party. It's doubtful they were even Trump voters. It would be ironic if they were liberal/Hillary/Obama supporters.
Since gun confiscation is not likely, meaning the 300 million guns will remain out there, you might consider purchasing one or more firearms and get some training. That way, if you are present at a mass shooting, maybe you could save yourself or someone else. I could bet that holding your hands up and saying, "Don't shoot me. I don't like guns.", will not save you.
And, riddle me this. Trump is worse than Hitler. He wants to bring back slavery. Or whatever claim you want to make. These dictators always, Always, ALWAYS confiscate the guns. First thing on the list. Until you can square that circle, you don't have much of an argument.
Merry Christmas, Socrates, hope you and yours are well this season. Happy New Year.
6
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Republican? No, he was not. He was an avowed Communist. He had a Russian wife.
Thanks for the weirdness, NYTimes.
5
That is a great idea Socrates, let those who benefit from guns, if such a description is appropriate, pay for the damage done by guns. Perhaps this may also be complemented by a fee tacked on to weapons permits, and to bullets and other items that are purchased along with guns in our country.
Divide the money up into funding for children left behind, medical and mental health care for the injured and GUN CONTROL ADVOCACY.
27
Just like the legal profession robs from the dead with their probate racket. People should read the best seller book "How to Avoid Probate" by Norman Dacey to see how to avoid the legal professions probate racket.
7
An insane comment, unless you are joking. If you are joking, it isnt much of a joke. 58 people were killed. Give your head a shake.
5
Reminds me of the old joke about the Devil going out of his way to perturb God. God said, "If you don't cut this stuff out, I'm going to sue you." The Devil replied, "Where you going to find a lawyer?"
Trust the lawyers.
Good one.
14
I would suggest a massive lawsuit against both the gun manufacturer and bump stock maker for starters, but I assume there is some insidious federal law granting them absolution for their sins. Perhaps the gun cult would agree to a law mandating forfeiture of assets by any killer (or his estate) found culpable of using a firearm while committing his crime. Even the NRA would have difficulty stretching the Second Amendment far enough to forbid this remedy. Gun victims are not part of the NRA calculus, they are just the cost of doing business.
66
"...some insidious federal law granting them absolution for their sins." Yeah, that constitution thing.
Here are some lawsuit ideas, at least as good as yours.
Auto manufacturers. Alcohol makers and distributors. Governments for paving the roads AND not having enough cops on the road.
3
Gun victims are the advertising flower of doing NRA business. When the Forgotten_Man® gets mad enough at the world, he has an out.
Props to Mr. Paddock for raising the bar to be the biggest single-perp mass murderer (or did I miss anything?)
@Mike: Really? Are you saying that auto manufacturers don't get sued for defective vehicles or for not taking safety precautions they could have? Are you saying that there are no dram shop laws in the US?
There is nothing in the constitution forbidding people from suing gun manufacturers, any more than the First Amendment prevents defamers from being successfully sued for losses caused by their slander.
Also, see the gigantic lawsuits against the asbestos and cigarette manufacturers.
2
Maybe Kenneth Feinberg should be enlisted to oversee the fair compensation of funds.
16
Are not all estates viewed by those in the profession as feeding troughs for law firms? Why should the estates of crazed killers be any different?
12
How do the owners of Mandalay Bay and the concert venue defend themselves against these claims? In what way are they responsible for what this guy did? Do they just settle? Count on their insurance to pay? Do the insurance companies conduct the defense? I'm curious.
I'm sad for all of the victims and their families. Such a horrible thing to have happened.
19
I too question the value of Paddock's estate. Who would knowingly want to buy any house he owned? Who would even want to stay in the hotel he was in, let alone the room?
5
You have it backwards: it would be a huge attraction. Lizzy Borden's room (in a house converted to a hostel) was very popular.
MAYbe a non-profit organization should snag all the (confiscated) homes and (donated — as a tax writeoff?) hotel rooms of horrible criminals, their victims, the businesses, lawyers, and politicians behind this state of affairs, rent them out at a premium to ghouls and weirdos, and thereby finance compensation for people damaged by our metastasized second amendment.
Volunteers?
1
Do not let 600 $600-an-hour attorneys in on it, or there will be only crumbs for the survivors. Name a court master who can appoint six lawyers and six CPAs to handle the whole thing with a six-month deadline for completion with or the forfeiture of all fees.
32
@ james haynes: 1) Why on earth would a lawyer or CPA take such a deal? There are many reasons that it could go beyond 6 months for reasons beyond their control. 2) Even $200/hr lawyers and CPAs (likely the least expensive you'd find in a major city)could go through $5 million reasonably quickly. Assuming they spent a quarter of their time on this project and wrapped it up in 6 months AND had no expenses or assistants (which is not possible), these 12 people would cost $576,000. It's a real challenge to think of how to hand out this money without spending it on administration, and simplistic ideas won't get it done.
1
MGM Resorts could easily match this amount (even if it wasn't at fault). The NRA could as well but we know that's not going to happen.
27
If a guest in my house brought in TEN BAGS of munitions and shot somebody on the front sidewalk, would my home-owner liability insurance pay?
2
Why keep publishing pure conjecture as to the size of his estate? In your report right here you clearly state that all guesses are based on news reports only. Why is your standard so low? It's highly doubtful that a guy who played poker machines with 50k at a pop has that much money left. You are all some really naive folks when it comes to gambling. First off, even if we gave him credit for having 100% of all earned money we know about, the typical size for the bankroll he played with was far to high for a player to have long term success. Secondly, he played poker machines which have a mathematically guaranteed win rate over a long period for the house of about 3%. So the more he played, the more likely he'd lose at least 3-6% more than he won. In other words, he wasn't even playing a game where a player can create an advantage on his side(don;t believe what the books are selling about gaining an advantage). Knowing these fundamental facts, if we were to conjecture, its more likely the case he that he was broke(part of the reason for his actions) and his only assets are his properties.
9
You are misinformed. There are certain (but relatively few) machines that with perfect play have a positive return. Based on the table of payoffs for each type of hand, a computer program can easily determine whether a machine could give a positive payoff. In most cases, it's the payoff for a full house that determines good vs. bad. The same program will also tell you the proper play in some non-obvious situations. With perfect play and max coins each hand, one is a consistent loser for the average of 50,000 hands needed to be played to get a royal flush, at which point you're ahead.
I had a good friend (recently passed away) who made a petty nice living doing just this. Add in all the comps he gained from the casino, he never had to pay for a meal unless he wanted to go elsewhere. During one visit, I actually played a machine alongside him using his money for about an hour. I was petty bored, but for certain people this type of activity is doable. Paddock was one such apparently.
1
Plenty of money and material comfort wasn't enough, he needed to see others die and suffer. Reminds me of the new tax plan.
45
Use the money to jail the leaders of the NRA who have enabled this violence. They are a plague.
45
Every penny he owned should go to his victims families!
16
His 5 million dollar fortune would not even cover the medical bills of the injured. Nor pay for all of the funerals and lost work and clean up.
Not to speak of the ongoing physical and mental therapy that will be needed.
His money is a drop in the bucket, especially for the medical care.
36
If the US had national health care the needs of the injured would be met. Without the benefit of the lawyers' delaying tactics.
2
His money should go to fighting the lobbyists that won't let congress pass common-sense gun laws.
Maybe if this was used in this way another mass shooting might not happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it.
9
He did the shooting as a "proof of concept." From his stays in the hotel he knew that concerts took place outside his window. No mass shooter had ever killed from above. So he set out to show that it could be done.
He made sure that he committed suicide and wasn't captured. So clearly he was disillusioned with his life.
1
Not true. Charles Whitmore committed a mass shooting from the UT campus tower in the 1960s in Austin, Texas.
3
UT Austin is a counter example to tour claim.
2
This would be fitting and of more help to the victims and their families than all the thoughts and prayers in the world especially when you look at the cost of health care in America. Paddock may be dead but he can still pay for his crimes and this is the way to do it. While his victims cannot be made whole again in the sense of reversing time so they aren't shot or killed, his money applied to their considerable medical bills (physical and mental) could go a long way to mitigating the possibility of medical bankruptcy particularly if they are never able to work again.
95
The medical bills should be sent to the NRA, plus charges for all the pain and suffering it has caused.
If we had a civil society.......
159
I wish that that were true. $5 Million doesn't go very far given the number of killed and wounded. Unfortunately, the suffering will long outlast any money available for distribution.
12
The NRA would send the bills back and say that the victims deserved what they got because they weren't carrying any firearms at the time. And then they'd laugh in their faces.
36