This is not a discussion about gun control or 2nd amendment. I'm sure the morons will turn it into one, and at the risk of my moron bucket runneth over, I'm going to go ahead and set a record for getting in before the lock....
I don't see how anyone could hold MGM/Mandalay Bay accountable for the LV shootings last year given the evidence we've seen so far. Unless there's some video along the lines of a valet saying "here, let me carry your AR-15 for you" that I haven't seen, I've found nothing that indicates MGM could have known - or should have known - that an arsenal was being amassed in one of their hotel rooms. I worked in several hotels during high school and college, and someone who keeps a DND sign on the door and requests no housekeeping over a week's stay is not uncommon. And even if the technology exists, no hotel would ever install anything to track how many bags a person is taking to/from their room lest they wish to be out of business for invasion of privacy. To say that MGM is liable isn't far removed from saying that the owner of the World Trade Center bears some responsibility for 9/11. It's an imperfect analogy, but I would think most jurors would agree - again, barring some video or testimony where an employee had some level of suspicion that would rise to a level similar to something of a "probable cause" standard - that it's not MGM's responsibility to police its guests, examine their luggage, monitor their quarters, etc. Otherwise, is the expectation to have to put a TSA installation at every high-rise building in the country? Hotel guests have a high expectation of privacy in this country [case in point: how many of you have smoked pot or drank beer (underage) in a hotel room on on multiple occasions without fear of being caught?], and I just don't see that changing.
That being said, at best this is a horrible, horrible PR move by MGM (and I say that with the reminder of being without influence of any opinion I or anyone else has on gun control/2nd Amendment). MGM is most certainly judge-shopping, and even if it's a sound legal strategy to bring to closure sooner, is it really worth the millions of dollars MGM (read: MGM's insurance company) might save?
Regardless of whether any of these would/could/should bear responsibility, IMO the victims' case against the gun/ammo/modifications mfgs and resellers, and perhaps even the girlfriend, will probably have at least enough merit to go to trial, but the case against MGM shouldn't make it out of discovery. You never want to send a case to a jury, but frankly, if MGM has a good litigation team*, they should take their chances and simply appeal if you lose the first go-around.
* Which I would have thought should, but given this move, I'm not so sure.
