Even if it seems in bad taste and it has been spun into worst taste by the clickbait media, you have to take into account that they are not suing the victims for damages, money, nor any such.
What MGM wants is a preemptive legal ruling that they had done all due diligence required towards security, and that therefore they are not liable for the actions of the shooter. Which, in a place where open carry is legal and that hosts the biggest gun shows in the US, doesn't seem so farfetched. This is something that WILL be decided by the courts sooner or later, since many victims are planning to sue MGM because the concert organizers have already obtained immunity from liability. MGM is trying to get this resolved (in their favor, duh) as soon as possible.
Where it looks bad is that in order to get such a ruling, they must present a lawsuit in fromt of a judge, and it requires them to name a defendant - in this case, the potential suers, AKA the victims of the shooter. And this gave the cue to all the misleading headlines.
What MGM wants is a preemptive legal ruling that they had done all due diligence required towards security, and that therefore they are not liable for the actions of the shooter. Which, in a place where open carry is legal and that hosts the biggest gun shows in the US, doesn't seem so farfetched. This is something that WILL be decided by the courts sooner or later, since many victims are planning to sue MGM because the concert organizers have already obtained immunity from liability. MGM is trying to get this resolved (in their favor, duh) as soon as possible.
Where it looks bad is that in order to get such a ruling, they must present a lawsuit in fromt of a judge, and it requires them to name a defendant - in this case, the potential suers, AKA the victims of the shooter. And this gave the cue to all the misleading headlines.